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

[Jim]

So the question becomes;  If the SpaceX launch schedule moved another 2 weeks cause of CRS-3, did the Jason launch also move 2 weeks more?    Can that time be made up?

They are independent from each other, since they are different coasts

[baldusi]

I don't know if SAOCOM-1A will even be ready by 2015-Q3, so the only problem would be Falcon Heavy inaugural flight.

[Prober]

I don't know if SAOCOM-1A will even be ready by 2015-Q3, so the only problem would be Falcon Heavy inaugural flight.

Let's hope SpaceX management does the proper thing this time and launch the NASA payload before another test launch.

[Prober]

So the question becomes;  If the SpaceX launch schedule moved another 2 weeks cause of CRS-3, did the Jason launch also move 2 weeks more?    Can that time be made up?

They are independent from each other, since they are different coasts

Let's hope they have enough trained crew to handle two pads.

[beancounter]

So the question becomes;  If the SpaceX launch schedule moved another 2 weeks cause of CRS-3, did the Jason launch also move 2 weeks more?    Can that time be made up?

They are independent from each other, since they are different coasts

Let's hope they have enough trained crew to handle two pads.

Prober:
What's with the 'let's hope' comments.   SpaceX are a professional organisation.  I'd say that's now beyond dispute given what they've accomplished so far and the payloads they've delivered.  One would think they were operating from Elon's garage from some of your comments. 
Perhaps one could ask exactly what sort of evidence will satisfy you?  And no, members of the general publice (I'm presuming here  ) are not going to get more access than what's already available so if that is what it will take, then you're going to be disappointed.
Is it just that they've been so 'out there' with their hype that's cheesed you off?

Cheers. 

[Prober]

So the question becomes;  If the SpaceX launch schedule moved another 2 weeks cause of CRS-3, did the Jason launch also move 2 weeks more?    Can that time be made up?

They are independent from each other, since they are different coasts

Let's hope they have enough trained crew to handle two pads.

Prober:
What's with the 'let's hope' comments.   SpaceX are a professional organisation.  I'd say that's now beyond dispute given what they've accomplished so far and the payloads they've delivered.  One would think they were operating from Elon's garage from some of your comments. 
Perhaps one could ask exactly what sort of evidence will satisfy you?  And no, members of the general publice (I'm presuming here  ) are not going to get more access than what's already available so if that is what it will take, then you're going to be disappointed.
Is it just that they've been so 'out there' with their hype that's cheesed you off?

Cheers.

SpaceX renewed my space interest and brought me to this site.  Now all I have for SpaceX is "hope"

[Star One]

CANNES, France — Europe’s meteorological satellite agency, Eumetsat, and the European Commission on July 8 said they expected to reach agreement on financing a long-delayed U.S-French ocean-altimetry satellite by October, and that NASA’s payments for the launch should be completed by then as well.

These two events will clear the way for the launch of the Jason-3 satellite sometime in 2015 aboard a Space Exploration Technologies Corp. Falcon 9 rocket, which NASA selected as Jason-3’s launcher in July 2012 under an $82 million contract. At the time, the satellite’s launch was expected in 2014.

http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/41211eumetsat’s-ratier-says-final-financing-is-secured-for-jason-3-mission

[Garrett]

After reading Helodriver's recent thread on SpaceX Vandenberg Updates, I thought I'd drag up this thread as Jason-3 might be the next launch from there.

Several sources cite March 2015 as the launch period, so maybe the thread title could include a "NET March 2015" ?
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2013-172
http://smsc.cnes.fr/JASON3/

[beancounter]

So the question becomes;  If the SpaceX launch schedule moved another 2 weeks cause of CRS-3, did the Jason launch also move 2 weeks more?    Can that time be made up?

They are independent from each other, since they are different coasts

Let's hope they have enough trained crew to handle two pads.

Prober:
What's with the 'let's hope' comments.   SpaceX are a professional organisation.  I'd say that's now beyond dispute given what they've accomplished so far and the payloads they've delivered.  One would think they were operating from Elon's garage from some of your comments. 
Perhaps one could ask exactly what sort of evidence will satisfy you?  And no, members of the general publice (I'm presuming here  ) are not going to get more access than what's already available so if that is what it will take, then you're going to be disappointed.
Is it just that they've been so 'out there' with their hype that's cheesed you off?

Cheers.

SpaceX renewed my space interest and brought me to this site.  Now all I have for SpaceX is "hope"

Excellent however I've moved beyond hope to a position based on demonstrated capability now unless you're referring to Elon's Mars ambitions which I'd agree is still in that category.
Cheers

[ugordan]

"CNES: Launch of US-Euro Jason-3 ocean-altimetry sat delayed to mid-2015 b/c NASA needs more time to certify the SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket."

https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/552464225646694402

[kevin-rf]

Raised eyebrow... After all that earlier v1 not v1.1 tempest in a teapot.

[ugordan]

Well, keep in mind they probably had to do some certification work all over again once SpaceX did a bait-n-switch on the launch vehicle. v1.1 only started being acceptable to NASA after its first flight, barely a year ago whereas v1.0 did have a bigger head start.

[Sohl]

Well, keep in mind they probably had to do some certification work all over again once SpaceX did a bait-n-switch on the launch vehicle. v1.1 only started being acceptable to NASA after its first flight, barely a year ago whereas v1.0 did have a bigger head start.

But at this point, haven't there been more flights of F9 v1.1 than v1.0, all of them successful?  (Actual count 8 flights for v1.1 versus 5 for v1.0)

The CNES statement (or de Selding's interpretation of it) seems a bit specious at this point.

[kevin-rf]

But how many Falcon 9 flights have been for NASA under NLS? I believe this is the first.

So while flight history is a nice to have, I wonder if the NLS certification requirements are stricter than CRS/COTS/Commercial. Thus leaving them additional validation work.

[Sohl]

But how many Falcon 9 flights have been for NASA under NLS? I believe this is the first.

So while flight history is a nice to have, I wonder if the NLS certification requirements are stricter than CRS/COTS/Commercial. Thus leaving them additional validation work.

Yes, this is probably true.  I wonder how truly meaningful the NLS certification requirements are compared to CRS/COTS, but on 'paper' they probably _are_ more difficult in some ways. 

[ugordan]

I wonder how truly meaningful the NLS certification requirements are compared to CRS/COTS, but on 'paper' they probably _are_ more difficult in some ways. 

Just compare the value and uniqueness of payloads NASA LSP is responsible for procuring launch services for and typical CRS cargo needs.

[Antares]

But how many Falcon 9 flights have been for NASA under NLS? I believe this is the first.

So while flight history is a nice to have, I wonder if the NLS certification requirements are stricter than CRS/COTS/Commercial. Thus leaving them additional validation work.

Yes, this is probably true.  I wonder how truly meaningful the NLS certification requirements are compared to CRS/COTS, but on 'paper' they probably _are_ more difficult in some ways. 

A couple of years ago, NASA and USAF said they were going to have common cert requirements, though separate cert efforts.  I've never seen the USAF requirements published anywhere (except summarized in the articles covering the commonality).

http://www.nasa.gov/directorates/heo/launch_services/policies.html

which links to
http://nodis.gsfc.nasa.gov/displayDir.cfm?t=NPD&c=8610&s=7D (The NASA requirements are about 3/4 the way down.)

If you look in the CRS contracts
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/news/contracts/NNJ09GA02B/NNJ09GA02B.html
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/NNJ09GA04B_BasicContract_Redacted.pdf
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/Mods_1-62_Redacted.pdf

CRS does not include NPD 8610.7 in its applicable documents section, which means it's not a contractual requirement.

[deruch]

Well, keep in mind they probably had to do some certification work all over again once SpaceX did a bait-n-switch on the launch vehicle. v1.1 only started being acceptable to NASA after its first flight, barely a year ago whereas v1.0 did have a bigger head start.

But at this point, haven't there been more flights of F9 v1.1 than v1.0, all of them successful?  (Actual count 8 flights for v1.1 versus 5 for v1.0)

The CNES statement (or de Selding's interpretation of it) seems a bit specious at this point.

You can't count the Dragon flights on the F9v1.1 because of the lack of a fairing.  So, for this discussion 6 instead of 8 or 9 after CRS-5.  But the 6 are still more than the v1.0's.

[Sesquipedalian]

You can't count the Dragon flights on the F9v1.1 because of the lack of a fairing.  So, for this discussion 6 instead of 8 or 9 after CRS-5.  But the 6 are still more than the v1.0's.

That restriction isn't valid.  Don't forget that Jason-3 originally was to launch on v1.0, and all of the v1.0 flights carried the Dragon.

[Galactic Penguin SST]

Peter B. de Selding @pbdes
Nasa: US-Euro Jason3 ocean-altimetry sat on SpaceX F9 delayed to mid-yr due to SpaceX CRS-6 acceleration+range avail+rocket certification.

CRS-6 is currently scheduled on April 8 so that makes sense. The problem is how many launch missions are planned between CRS-5 and CRS-6 - 2 or 3 or something else?