I'll put it differently...As long as it takes 3 days to recover from a static fire, the impediment to one day turn-around is not the existence of the static fire, but the fact that even from a lowly static fire you still need 3 days...And conversely, if the rocket can be fully turned around in a day, then surely it can do static fires almost at will...
Quote from: meekGee on 01/03/2016 12:15 pmI'll put it differently...As long as it takes 3 days to recover from a static fire, the impediment to one day turn-around is not the existence of the static fire, but the fact that even from a lowly static fire you still need 3 days...And conversely, if the rocket can be fully turned around in a day, then surely it can do static fires almost at will...True.However I am assuming that they will be able to evaluate the engine data real time, so they can make the go/no go decision while firing the engines up. Wether it is 80% chance for go or 95% to omit hot fire will be their technical and business decision. If they do a dedicated hot fire it involves some cost and time. They said the engines can do 40 cycles before they need refurbishment. A hot fire will expend 2,5% of that. Also when they do the hot fire an hour before launch and it is no go, then likely they cannot fix the problem in one hour. To be useful as a separate step in getting the vehicle launch ready they need to do it a day early so they can detank, repair and go. Without that buffer they are no better off with a negative hot fire result than they would be with a launch abort.
Quote from: meekGee on 01/03/2016 12:15 pmI'll put it differently...As long as it takes 3 days to recover from a static fire, the impediment to one day turn-around is not the existence of the static fire, but the fact that even from a lowly static fire you still need 3 days...And conversely, if the rocket can be fully turned around in a day, then surely it can do static fires almost at will...You don't actually need one day stage turn around to fly once a day. I can easily envision a scenario where spacex has a fleet of 7+ first stages and launches one per day. This gives them a week to turn around each stage, while still maintaining a daily launch cadence.
Would it make sense to invest in a test stand near the landing site?
Quote from: meekGee on 01/03/2016 12:15 pmI'll put it differently...As long as it takes 3 days to recover from a static fire, the impediment to one day turn-around is not the existence of the static fire, but the fact that even from a lowly static fire you still need 3 days...And conversely, if the rocket can be fully turned around in a day, then surely it can do static fires almost at will...Let's recognize that SpaceX is still a relatively young company and are on the 3rd iteration of the F9. They don't have that many cycles on the vehicle and are still learning. The F9 doesn't have to much tinkering left in it. Going forward, I think, SpaceX's development will shift to hardware and process refinements as flight history and launch rate increase. At some point when there is enough history and process improvement that some elements like the McGregor testing or Static fire are simplified, combined or eliminated.
Quote from: wannamoonbase on 01/03/2016 11:37 pmQuote from: meekGee on 01/03/2016 12:15 pmI'll put it differently...As long as it takes 3 days to recover from a static fire, the impediment to one day turn-around is not the existence of the static fire, but the fact that even from a lowly static fire you still need 3 days...And conversely, if the rocket can be fully turned around in a day, then surely it can do static fires almost at will...Let's recognize that SpaceX is still a relatively young company and are on the 3rd iteration of the F9. They don't have that many cycles on the vehicle and are still learning. The F9 doesn't have to much tinkering left in it. Going forward, I think, SpaceX's development will shift to hardware and process refinements as flight history and launch rate increase. At some point when there is enough history and process improvement that some elements like the McGregor testing or Static fire are simplified, combined or eliminated.Actually, the launch sequence gives them a 'static fire' -- then they release the holddowns if everything checks out nominal. As experience with the system grows, and the time between launches of gently-used stages decreases, this could become their static fire equivalent.
Quote from: AncientU on 01/05/2016 01:13 amQuote from: wannamoonbase on 01/03/2016 11:37 pmQuote from: meekGee on 01/03/2016 12:15 pmI'll put it differently...As long as it takes 3 days to recover from a static fire, the impediment to one day turn-around is not the existence of the static fire, but the fact that even from a lowly static fire you still need 3 days...And conversely, if the rocket can be fully turned around in a day, then surely it can do static fires almost at will...Let's recognize that SpaceX is still a relatively young company and are on the 3rd iteration of the F9. They don't have that many cycles on the vehicle and are still learning. The F9 doesn't have to much tinkering left in it. Going forward, I think, SpaceX's development will shift to hardware and process refinements as flight history and launch rate increase. At some point when there is enough history and process improvement that some elements like the McGregor testing or Static fire are simplified, combined or eliminated.Actually, the launch sequence gives them a 'static fire' -- then they release the holddowns if everything checks out nominal. As experience with the system grows, and the time between launches of gently-used stages decreases, this could become their static fire equivalent.Except you don't get the shutdown data. And you don't have any window for data analysis beyond the realtime bit.
I don't know what to make of the interstage look. There's blistering in the paint, but it doesn't look like heat damage to me - I'd expect the decals to be fried if it was. Could it trapped air expanding in vacuum? The decals appear weirdly sandblasted, but the effect is very localized. I can see why from a distance it looked like the "l" in Falcon got torn off. The effect on the fins kinda looks like a fairly thick coating was coming off. Ablative paint?
SpaceX Falcon 9 upgrade certified for National Security Space launchesby Space and Missile Systems Center Public Affairs Space and Missile Systems Center 1/22/2016 - LOS ANGELES AIR FORCE BASE, El Segundo, Calif. -- Lt. Gen. Samuel Greaves, Air Force Program Executive Officer for Space and Space and Missile Systems Center commander, updated the certified baseline configuration of SpaceX's Falcon 9 Launch System to Falcon 9 Upgrade, for use in National Security Space (NSS) missions. The baseline configuration of the Falcon 9 Launch System was updated to the Falcon 9 Upgrade on Jan. 25. SpaceX is eligible for award of NSS launch missions, in accordance with the updated Certification Letter, as one of two currently certified launch providers. The partnership between SpaceX and the Air Force continues as they focus on SpaceX's newest vehicle configuration, Falcon 9 Upgrade. SpaceX and Air Force technical teams will jointly work to complete the tasks required to prepare SpaceX and the Falcon 9 Upgrade for NSS missions. This certification update takes into account all of the Spring 2015 Independent Review Committee's recommendations, including clarification that the SMC commander, as the certifying official, has the authority to grant certification and updates based on a New Entrant's demonstrated capability to design, produce, qualify and deliver their launch system. This includes allowing New Entrant certification with some open work, provided there are jointly approved work plans in place that support potential NSS mission processing timelines. "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 NSS satellites to orbit," Greaves said. "This gives the Air Force confidence that the national security satellites will safely achieve the intended orbits with full mission capability." The purpose of certification is to provide high confidence for successful NSS launches by determining that New Entrants are capable of meeting Air Force established launch requirements for the complex NSS challenges and environments. The Air Force has established launch standards that all launch providers must meet to become certified. Formal design and mission reliability assessments ensure the launch system's capability to provide the necessary payload mass-to-orbit, orbital insertion accuracy, and other requirements to place a healthy payload into its intended orbit. The Space and Missile Systems Center, 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 the Global Positioning System, military satellite communications, defense meteorological satellites, space launch and range systems, satellite control networks, space based infrared systems and space situational awareness capabilities. Media representatives can submit questions for response regarding this topic by sending an e-mail to [email protected]
DOD certification of the FT upgrade is welcome news. I'm slightly surprised 1 flight was sufficient and also that it only took 1 month. Was that expected? Anything to do with the more 'appropriate' DOD oversight following the drawn out issues getting F9 certified originally?
It seems to me the Falcon 9 v1.1 FT now has a more official name, the 'Falcon 9 Upgrade'.
Quote from: rocx on 01/25/2016 06:51 pmIt seems to me the Falcon 9 v1.1 FT now has a more official name, the 'Falcon 9 Upgrade'.That's the problem, this new version has had a half-dozen names, all of them sourced to SpaceX official pubs, or Shotwell, or Musk, or NSF, or Aviation Week, SpaceNews, etc. sources. Here's just a half dozen or so of them that are noted in the Wikipedia article: "Falcon 9 full thrust", "Falcon 9 v1.1 Full Thrust,[1] Falcon 9 v1.2, Enhanced Falcon 9, Full-Performance Falcon 9,[2] Upgraded Falcon 9,[3] and Falcon 9 Upgrade[4]" And Chris has said that SpaceX have asked him, as a publisher, to just call the new rocket a "Falcon 9". So I don't think it is clear, at all, that 'Falcon 9 Upgrade' is now the more official name.