SpaceX Falcon 9 : X-37B OTV-5 : September 7, 2017 : DISCUSSION

[Chris Bergin]

For what it's worth I'm hearing this was actually awarded a couple of years ago.. and that the one after it is awarded to ULA. Fits the multiple platforms comment.

[rockets4life97]

For what it's worth I'm hearing this was actually awarded a couple of years ago.. and that the one after it is awarded to ULA. Fits the multiple platforms comment.

Maybe after the lawsuit? that would make sense to me. The idea that the Air Force does anything rather quickly and could order up the launch this year seems completely off base to me. That isn't how I understand the military the federal bureaucracy to work.

[Star One]

For what it's worth I'm hearing this was actually awarded a couple of years ago.. and that the one after it is awarded to ULA. Fits the multiple platforms comment.

Wouldn't surprise me if down the line it didn't get launched on a New Glenn as well Vulcan.

[Jim]

Wouldn't surprise me if down the line it didn't get launched on a New Glenn

Blue isn't going after the gov't market.  Also, NG is way too big

[Star One]

Wouldn't surprise me if down the line it didn't get launched on a New Glenn

Blue isn't going after the gov't market.  Also, NG is way too big

So just alternating then probably between Falcon 9 & Vulcan.

[gongora]

Wouldn't surprise me if down the line it didn't get launched on a New Glenn

Blue isn't going after the gov't market.  Also, NG is way too big

So just alternating then probably between Falcon 9 & Vulcan.

It would be on the vehicles selected in the forthcoming AF competition to choose their two launch providers for the 2021-2025 period (add a couple years to that range for heavy payloads).

[Star One]

Wouldn't surprise me if down the line it didn't get launched on a New Glenn

Blue isn't going after the gov't market.  Also, NG is way too big

So just alternating then probably between Falcon 9 & Vulcan.

It would be on the vehicles selected in the forthcoming AF competition to choose their two launch providers for the 2021-2025 period (add a couple years to that range for heavy payloads).

But isn't the very likely choice going to be Falcon 9 & Vulcan if Blue aren't interested in government contracts. Orbital don't have anything to offer other than a paper rocket.

[clongton]

Wouldn't surprise me if down the line it didn't get launched on a New Glenn

Blue isn't going after the gov't market.  Also, NG is way too big

So just alternating then probably between Falcon 9 & Vulcan.

It would be on the vehicles selected in the forthcoming AF competition to choose their two launch providers for the 2021-2025 period (add a couple years to that range for heavy payloads).

But isn't the very likely choice going to be Falcon 9 & Vulcan if Blue aren't interested in government contracts. Orbital don't have anything to offer other than a paper rocket.

Vulcan is still just a paper rocket.

[clongton]

The reason it hasn't happened is because it is not launcher driven,

Incorrect. It is very much *lack of* launcher driven. The necessity of having to wait for months for a ride changes the whole dynamic. A Rapid-Response reusable F9 can *potentially* change that. I know the AF wants that capability.

[Jim]

Wouldn't surprise me if down the line it didn't get launched on a New Glenn

Blue isn't going after the gov't market.  Also, NG is way too big

So just alternating then probably between Falcon 9 & Vulcan.

It would be on the vehicles selected in the forthcoming AF competition to choose their two launch providers for the 2021-2025 period (add a couple years to that range for heavy payloads).

But isn't the very likely choice going to be Falcon 9 & Vulcan if Blue aren't interested in government contracts. Orbital don't have anything to offer other than a paper rocket.

Vulcan is still just a paper rocket.

No, it isn't.  Its upper stage, avionics, fairing, solid motors, launch pad, LCC already exist.

[Jim]

The reason it hasn't happened is because it is not launcher driven,

Incorrect. It is very much *lack of* launcher driven. The necessity of having to wait for months for a ride changes the whole dynamic. A Rapid-Response reusable F9 can *potentially* change that. I know the AF wants that capability.

Wrong.

First, nothing has changed.  This X-37 mission did nothing to demonstrate Rapid-Response nor change the status quo.  It has been on contract from some time.  Falcon 9 is no more Rapid-Response than other vehicles.  Atlas has had the capability to swap a payload.

Second, if the USAF want a rapid response launch vehicle, it could have several Pegasus built up in a depot awaiting launches.  Or it could have Minuteman or Peacekeeper based Minotaurs on pads, in silos or in depots.

Third, it has always been the payload.  Launch vehicles have been available and waiting for payloads.  The payloads are not quick reacting.  They have to be built, shipped, tested and fueled before they can be launched.  Other than GPS which had a few at the launch site (and still had a 60 day call up), there is no project with ready spacecraft.  If they are constellation with a production run, they are stored at the factory.

The Rapid-Response is not a new thing, it is as old as the space program.  the closest the USAF got to it was Thor Agena and Corona.  But they decided that spares on orbit was faster reaction than trying to launch replacements.

This is just another case of taking the X-37 and the news surrounding it and making into something that it isn't

[jg]

The Air Force has had it's sights set on a reusable launch vehicle for some time, letting study contracts over the years for winged fly-back boosters, RTLS boosters, etc. SpaceX has now stepped into the gap with such a launcher so I imagine the Space Command wing is salivating over the possibilities. It wouldn't surprise me to see the Air Force eventually do a block buy of F9's to be used exclusively for their needs; flown, recovered, refurbished and stored near both CCAFS and Vandenberg. My time in the Air Force taught me that they mean exactly what they say, so when they say "rapid response" they may very well be -reaching- for the capability to grab a flight-proven booster out of the barn on really short notice, mount and integrate whatever payload they want up there, fuel up and launch. Turn-around time measured in days (eventually in hours), not weeks. Remember that Elon has stated over and over again that his turn-around time goals are airline-style; fuel, launch, recover, refuel, relaunch, re-recover, do it again. Nowhere near that yet but it would not surprise me in the least if that is a shared goal with the Air Force.

Not happening.  It doesn't do them any good to buy and physically have the vehicles.  The Air Force could just used the next booster available.  It doesn't need to have them stored.  But that still is not going to happen.  There still is about 6 months of analytic integration required.  And there are no payloads that can react that quick either.

Come now, Jim.   The Air Force knows their payload's characteristics long in advance: the analytic part of integration can also be done well in advance.

For many payloads, they'll have them available in advance too.  And the AF is quite worried about  adversaries taking out satellites without warning.  Then they'd want to get replacements on orbit quickly.

However, I agree they could just use the next booster available; SpaceX certainly has a lot of them on hand and that does not seem likely to change anytime soon.  As Musk tweeted, they are the dog that caught the school bus, and they did so sooner than they seem to have expected.

More of a concern would be to have a few upper stages /fairing sets that they could tap on short notice. At least until SpaceX catches up on their backlog, they are in short supply.

[Jim]

Come now, Jim.   The Air Force knows their payload's characteristics long in advance: the analytic part of integration can also be done well in advance.

Each payload still has differences and its orbital location is not known.  There are still unique analyses for each launch. 
And there is still is the spacecraft prep.  4 to 6 weeks.

The F9 launch processing isn't going to increase the response rate. 
 
and if the USAF was serious about it in the past, they could have had another Atlas V VIF built.  But the Atlas V launch rate capability (60 days) with the 2nd VIF is still higher than the spacecraft response rate.

[Kansan52]

The only 'big deal' is how unaware we were that this would happen.

[LouScheffer]

Come now, Jim.   The Air Force knows their payload's characteristics long in advance: the analytic part of integration can also be done well in advance.

Each payload still has differences and its orbital location is not known.  There are still unique analyses for each launch. 
And there is still is the spacecraft prep.  4 to 6 weeks.

This is certainly the status quo, but does not need to be the case.  You could surely use higher margins to cover minor differences between payloads, and either margins or multiple analyses to cover multiple different orbits.  You could even have fueled, tested spacecraft sitting around (after all, Titan had an entire, hypergolic fueled, rocket + payload sitting around).  It's just that this kind of stuff costs time, money, and risk, and no-one has been serious enough about rapid response to bother.

and if the USAF was serious about it in the past, they could have had another Atlas V VIF built.

Exactly.  There is all sorts of stuff the USAF could have done if they were serious about this, so you correctly deduce they have not been committed to rapid response, at least up until now.  But from a technical point of view, I see no reason they could not have an ICBM loaded with an imaging satellite, comms relay, or other payload, ready for launch in  a half hour.   It's a matter of will and money, not some technical barrier.

[woods170]

Vulcan is still just a paper rocket.

No, it isn't.  Its upper stage, avionics, fairing, solid motors, launch pad, LCC already exist.

I beg to differ. Without it's core stage and associated main engine Vulcan very much is a paper rocket.
Remember that famous phrase of yours: Rockets are not LEGO's.
You don't just stick an Atlas V upper stage onto a new core stage. There will be mods.
And no, the launch pad does not exist. Neither the existing Atlas V launchpads, nor the existing Delta IV launchpads have the GSE required for methane.

[WizZifnab]

Vulcan is still just a paper rocket.

No, it isn't.  Its upper stage, avionics, fairing, solid motors, launch pad, LCC already exist.

So you can actually just lego together a rocket design? And not only that, but the rocket design wouldn't be considered a paper rocket? ;-)

I would agree its not a paper rocket if some part of the rocket involved new hardware that actually exists right now.   Otherwise, we can imagine all sorts of non-paper rockets, right?

Edit: I'm discounting 'new' hardware work that predated the potential usage on the Vulcan.  That said, I think its quite possible that there is some hardware being worked that is dedicated to the Vulcan rocket...but not so much that I would go sternly against someone still feeling its a paper rocket at this point.

[gongora]

Whether or not you think Vulcan is a real rocket is completely off-topic for this thread.  Further posts on that subject will be removed.

[Jim]

It's a matter of will and money, not some technical barrier.

I would say having the same reliability and capabilities as existing systems as a technical barrier.

[Req]

Isn't Block 5 the one that meets Air Force requirements?

Requirement or a strong request that eventually must be fulfilled for all launches ?
For example, NASA wants the turbine crack problem fixed, but they're not freezing CRS launches despite of that issue.

NASA has said that they want the turbines fixed as a hard requirement for commercial crew, and that they have been and continue to be comfortable with with situation for CRS.