California Secrets - SpaceX F9 v1.1 Cassiope Launch Party Thread

[spectre9]

Who was it that said November? 

[SpacexULA]

Interesting that the Vandenburg date is slipping slightly but not the Cape launch date.  I wonder what the closest gap SpaceX is willing to tolerate between these two launches.

[tigerade]

Interesting that the Vandenburg date is slipping slightly but not the Cape launch date.  I wonder what the closest gap SpaceX is willing to tolerate between these two launches.

Well, I haven't heard of a solid launch date at all for SES-8, only a vague mention of "October".  So, I wouldn't take stock in it. 

[ChrisWilson68]

Interesting that the Vandenburg date is slipping slightly but not the Cape launch date.  I wonder what the closest gap SpaceX is willing to tolerate between these two launches.

I suppose it just comes down to how long they need to analyze the data from the first flight to convince themselves there are no anomalies that need further investigation before they launch again.  If all the data is clean, I don't see why that should take long -- really, they should have software already written to analyze the data and flag anything suspicious.  If there's nothing suspicious, it shouldn't take long to clear it.

So, in theory, I think it's possible they could launch the next day.

In practice, with a new vehicle there are likely to be a few anomalies along the way, even if the flight is a success.  There's really no way to predict how long it will take to track down the causes of those anomalies and determine what, if any, corrective action to take, and then take those corrective actions.

[AncientU]

A question from pure inexperience... SpaceX has multiple stages and dozens of engines flowing out of Hawthorne before the first actual flight of v1.1 and M1-D.  This seems completely new to me -- parallel development instead of serial, where equipment is test flown, developed some more, test flown, repeat. Is this new? Is SpaceX confident or crazy? Or both?

[pippin]

Well, they probably want to become a launch service provider instead of a development company so at some time they have to start ramping up their production. Can't go on doing major changes forever and smaller ones can be re-worked into the existing stages if needed.

[Robotbeat]

Well, they probably want to become a launch service provider instead of a development company so at some time they have to start ramping up their production. Can't go on doing major changes forever and smaller ones can be re-worked into the existing stages if needed.

Agreed, but this is the party thread!

[ChrisWilson68]

A question from pure inexperience... SpaceX has multiple stages and dozens of engines flowing out of Hawthorne before the first actual flight of v1.1 and M1-D.  This seems completely new to me -- parallel development instead of serial, where equipment is test flown, developed some more, test flown, repeat. Is this new? Is SpaceX confident or crazy? Or both?

With airplanes, it can be practical to repeat the cycle of test flight, development, test flight over and over.  With expendable launch vehicles, the economics are very different because you can't fly without throwing away your whole test flight vehicle.

In a way, the Cassiope flight is kind of a test flight.  Cassiope was originally scheduled to fly on Falcon 1.  It's far lighter and less expensive than a typical Falcon 9 payload.  It's likely the customer only paid a fraction of the going rate for a Falcon 9 -- probably more like the old Falcon 1 price.

So it's likely this flight is mostly a test flight for Falcon 9v1.1, with a low-cost payload that is willing to tolerate higher-than-usual risk thrown on to offset a portion of the cost.  No matter how risky a launch, you might as well put a payload on it, if you can find one for which the benefit of a cheap flight outweighs the high risk.  The first Delta IV Heavy flight did something similar.

[pippin]

Agreed, but this is the party thread!

So not supposed to answer questions here or what?

[kevin-rf]

A question from pure inexperience... SpaceX has multiple stages and dozens of engines flowing out of Hawthorne before the first actual flight of v1.1 and M1-D.  This seems completely new to me -- parallel development instead of serial, where equipment is test flown, developed some more, test flown, repeat. Is this new? Is SpaceX confident or crazy? Or both?

Boeing appears to have pulled it off with the 787... But then again, with that program everything that could go wrong did!

[Lars_J]

A question from pure inexperience... SpaceX has multiple stages and dozens of engines flowing out of Hawthorne before the first actual flight of v1.1 and M1-D.  This seems completely new to me -- parallel development instead of serial, where equipment is test flown, developed some more, test flown, repeat. Is this new? Is SpaceX confident or crazy? Or both?

Most new LV developments these days do all-up testing. They don't feel the need to do a suborbital Ares 1 style test, then add the next stage, then payload, and so on.

[Jim]

A question from pure inexperience... SpaceX has multiple stages and dozens of engines flowing out of Hawthorne before the first actual flight of v1.1 and M1-D.  This seems completely new to me -- parallel development instead of serial, where equipment is test flown, developed some more, test flown, repeat. Is this new? Is SpaceX confident or crazy? Or both?

Most new LV developments these days do all-up testing. They don't feel the need to do a suborbital Ares 1 style test, then add the next stage, then payload, and so on.

He is not talking about the test philosophy but that they are going into production without first a test flight

[Lars_J]

A question from pure inexperience... SpaceX has multiple stages and dozens of engines flowing out of Hawthorne before the first actual flight of v1.1 and M1-D.  This seems completely new to me -- parallel development instead of serial, where equipment is test flown, developed some more, test flown, repeat. Is this new? Is SpaceX confident or crazy? Or both?

Most new LV developments these days do all-up testing. They don't feel the need to do a suborbital Ares 1 style test, then add the next stage, then payload, and so on.

He is not talking about the test philosophy but that they are going into production without first a test flight

But that is also not unique. Atlas V and Delta IV flew their first flights with relatively large payloads from paying customers, right?

I'm still not understanding how this argument makes SpaceX look like they are taking more risk than usual for a first flight of a new type. They aren't.

[ChrisWilson68]

A question from pure inexperience... SpaceX has multiple stages and dozens of engines flowing out of Hawthorne before the first actual flight of v1.1 and M1-D.  This seems completely new to me -- parallel development instead of serial, where equipment is test flown, developed some more, test flown, repeat. Is this new? Is SpaceX confident or crazy? Or both?

Most new LV developments these days do all-up testing. They don't feel the need to do a suborbital Ares 1 style test, then add the next stage, then payload, and so on.

He is not talking about the test philosophy but that they are going into production without first a test flight

But that is also not unique. Atlas V and Delta IV flew their first flights with relatively large payloads from paying customers, right?

I'm still not understanding how this argument makes SpaceX look like they are taking more risk than usual for a first flight of a new type. They aren't.

I think that the point is that they've built a bunch of Merlin 1Ds and other hardware for the next several flights before flying the first one.

Given that the second Delta IV flight took place less than four months after the first, I'd say most of the second Delta production was also done before the first flight of its type.

[Lars_J]

Exactly... This is normal practice. Nothing unusual. Just the usual concerns from members of the SpaceX "concern squad" (*) that want to portray this flight as the most riskiest flight ever.

[AJW]

Hey, another reason to celebrate!  Chris has given SpaceX its own sub-section in the forums.  It's like the first holiday you didn't have to eat at the kid's table, or being able to stay in the pool when the lifeguard called, 'Adult Swim'.

[Prober]

A question from pure inexperience... SpaceX has multiple stages and dozens of engines flowing out of Hawthorne before the first actual flight of v1.1 and M1-D.  This seems completely new to me -- parallel development instead of serial, where equipment is test flown, developed some more, test flown, repeat. Is this new? Is SpaceX confident or crazy? Or both?

Most new LV developments these days do all-up testing. They don't feel the need to do a suborbital Ares 1 style test, then add the next stage, then payload, and so on.

He is not talking about the test philosophy but that they are going into production without first a test flight

But that is also not unique. Atlas V and Delta IV flew their first flights with relatively large payloads from paying customers, right?

I'm still not understanding how this argument makes SpaceX look like they are taking more risk than usual for a first flight of a new type. They aren't.

They didn't do a stupid thing like scrap an operating LV and Pad; then bet contracts and all on a new untested model.

[Robotbeat]

This is a boring party.

[AJW]

They didn't do a stupid thing like scrap an operating LV and Pad; then bet contracts and all on a new untested model.

Question open to all:  If you were running SpaceX, when would you decide to switch to a new/upgraded LV and why?

Key factors include:
Have you learned all you can from the operating LV?
Should you wait until you have even more launch commitments?
Is it practical to run two assembly lines along with all of the additional personnel?
Does it make sense to rent and staff additional pads?
What if the switch brings key design improvements and greater capability?
What if the switch brings significant cost savings?
What if the upgraded LV provides potentially huge cost savings?
What if the decision isn't purely economic and is driven by a grander vision?

[Lars_J]

No need to ask questions like that.. Whatever SpaceX does is always WRONG, so very WRONG!