SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 - Jason 3 - SLC-4E Vandenberg - Jan 17, 2016 - DISCUSSION

[Jim]

this might be true, and SpaceX might wish to stop testing Grasshopper and use the core for Jason or ULA gets another Delta II launch.

I don't think they can; hasn't the Delta II production line already been shut down?

Antares would seem the more likely alternative.

There are a few more Delta II's left in storage, waiting for a mission.

one left

[douglas100]

Lou:  That's exactly what I expect to happen.  I suppose there could be a v 1.0 sitting in storage that us in peanut gallery don't know about, but I doubt it. I fully anticipate the contract to be amended to allow v. 1.1 after a few good launches, if the wording does not currently permit it.

Even if there were a left over v1.0, (and I agree it's unlikely) the pad infrastructure is set up for v1.1, so they couldn't launch it anyway.  I believe Ben already made this point.

[Prober]

Can we get an update on this launch in the pipeline?

With all the slips in the first 1.1 launches;  hasn't this possible launch slipped another 4-6 months?

 

[Robotbeat]

Can we get an update on this launch in the pipeline?

With all the slips in the first 1.1 launches;  hasn't this possible launch slipped another 4-6 months?

 

They aren't going to slip it until we get closer.

[Jason1701]

Shotwell confirmed in her ISPCS talk that SpaceX had to maintain the capability of building another v1.0 until they had a successful v1.1 flight, but no more.

(28:00)

[llanitedave]

If those surplus Merlin 1C's now get to be put out for a yard sale, I'm driving over there!

[oiorionsbelt]

Shotwell confirmed in her ISPCS talk that SpaceX had to maintain the capability of building another v1.0 until they had a successful v1.1 flight, but no more.

So much for the pages and pages of "NASA is upset, how dare SpaceX cancel the v1.0 when JASON was contracted for it," discussion.

[LouScheffer]

Shotwell confirmed in her ISPCS talk that SpaceX had to maintain the capability of building another v1.0 until they had a successful v1.1 flight, but no more.

This is truly bizarre news.  NASA oddly refused to stand on the letter of the contract, and demand an obsolete rocket the vendor had no interest in producing.  And SpaceX didn't unilaterally modify its offering, and then tell the customer to like it or else.  Instead they sat down like adults and negotiated a compromise acceptable to both!  If only our politicians could be so bold....

[Kabloona]

Shotwell confirmed in her ISPCS talk that SpaceX had to maintain the capability of building another v1.0 until they had a successful v1.1 flight, but no more.

So much for the pages and pages of "NASA is upset, how dare SpaceX cancel the v1.0 when JASON was contracted for it," discussion.

We don't know what went on behind the scenes. NASA was obviously uncomfortable committing JASON to a basically new unproven vehicle, and capability retention to build another v1.0 may gave been a compromise/concession that SpaceX had to make in order to smooth the waters.  So I don't see that anything Gwynne said disproves Jim's assertion that NASA wasn't happy with potentially having to change horses for that mission. In fact it reinforces what Jim said. Otherwise SpaceX wouldn't have agreed to retain capability to build another v1.0.

[meekGee]

Shotwell confirmed in her ISPCS talk that SpaceX had to maintain the capability of building another v1.0 until they had a successful v1.1 flight, but no more.

This is truly bizarre news.  NASA oddly refused to stand on the letter of the contract, and demand an obsolete rocket the vendor had no interest in producing.  And SpaceX didn't unilaterally modify its offering, and then tell the customer to like it or else.  Instead they sat down like adults and negotiated a compromise acceptable to both!  If only our politicians could be so bold....

Well it shows they discussed it, there were concerns, and a compromise was reached that was satisfactory to everyone.  I don't think anyone suggested that NASA "didn't care" about the move from V1.0 to V1.1.   It's just that they wanted a path forward that was reasonable and responsible towards the mission.  They certainly could have been a lot more hard-nosed about it if they wanted to, but it would have been counter-productive.

The M1Cs?   I see a very limited edition coffee table coming up.   ..

[smoliarm]

...

The M1Cs?   I see a very limited edition coffee table coming up.   ..

[beancounter]

Apologies to Jim who knew what he was talking about when he stated F9 v1.1 was a new vehicle and that NASA wouldn't let SpaceX off their contractual obligations regarding flying their sat' on v1.0.  Not sure if he mentioned what NASA would do with a successful v1.1 but anyway an accurate call as usual.

[woods170]

Apologies to Jim who knew what he was talking about when he stated F9 v1.1 was a new vehicle and that NASA wouldn't let SpaceX off their contractual obligations regarding flying their sat' on v1.0.  Not sure if he mentioned what NASA would do with a successful v1.1 but anyway an accurate call as usual.

NASA is still letting SpaceX off the hook. Jason 3 will not fly on a Falcon 9 v1.0. However, SpaceX is being let off the hook only because they SpaceX fulfilled an additional condition: demonstrate succesfull flight of Falcon 9 v1.1.

(Now patiently awaiting until someone starts pointing out that the first Falcon 9 v1.1 flight was actually not succesfull because the upper stage didn't restart)

[kevin-rf]

Does Jason need the restart? If not, then your point is?

Edit: that was curt, sorry. At only 553kg the Falcon 9 v1.1 should be able to do a direct insert (without restart) to the required 1336 km × 1336 km; 66°orbit.

Orbit an weight from Gunter's page http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/jason-2.htm

[Kabloona]

Does Jason need the restart? If not, then your point is?

His point was that the F9v1.1 demo flight was successful, but anticipating that some naysayer was going to argue based on the restart issue.

[ugordan]

Does Jason need the restart? If not, then your point is?

His point was that the F9v1.1 demo flight was successful, but anticipating that some naysayer was going to argue based on the restart issue.

Even mentioning that someone would complain is kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy, wouldn't you say?

[Antares]

A mission is successful if the primary payload is within its 3 sigma predicted contractual orbit elements.  Jason-3 is a 2-burn mission.

[thydusk666]

Does Jason need the restart? If not, then your point is?

Edit: that was curt, sorry. At only 553kg the Falcon 9 v1.1 should be able to do a direct insert (without restart) to the required 1336 km × 1336 km; 66°orbit.

Orbit an weight from Gunter's page http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/jason-2.htm

How would you put an object in a 1336km circular orbit with a single burn?

The way I see it, you would have to burn at apogee in order to circularize, so a minimum 2 burns is required.

[Lars_J]

Does Jason need the restart? If not, then your point is?

Edit: that was curt, sorry. At only 553kg the Falcon 9 v1.1 should be able to do a direct insert (without restart) to the required 1336 km × 1336 km; 66°orbit.

Orbit an weight from Gunter's page http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/jason-2.htm

How would you put an object in a 1336km circular orbit with a single burn?

The way I see it, you would have to burn at apogee in order to circularize, so a minimum 2 burns is required.

No, it can be done - although it may not be the most efficient way to do it.

[Prober]

A mission is successful if the primary payload is within its 3 sigma predicted contractual orbit elements.  Jason-3 is a 2-burn mission.

I'll wait for Jim on this. 
But if the mission requires 2 burns then ver 1.0 should never have won this bid.  Don't think the merlin on ver 1.0 could restart