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

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

Trying to get back on topic about Jason-3 and SpaceX, since it has not shown up in the manafest yet there must be still some negotiation/contract finalization going on.

[ugordan]

You give too much significance to the manifest page on their site, IMHO.

[sdsds]

some of reasons why

Fantastic post. Thank you!

Centaur unlike the F9 2nd stage actually performs operations/burns at GEO altitudes requiring the more radiation tolerant components. This gives an advantage to Atlas V/ Centaur for use in most BEO and some GEO missions over the F9.

For GEO missions that makes sense. I don't understand the connection to BEO missions, though. Do those require the upper stage to perform operations above LEO?

[joek]

[From Gen Shelton's testimony before Congress he states the RL-10 manufacturing process is largly a by-hand process using not much better than hand tools.

Gen. Shelton has made similar statements on several occassions; the most specific I've seen was his keynote at the 15th FAA commercial space transportation conference:

As an example, each of the Atlas and Delta upper stage engines requires almost 8,000 man-touch-hours--more than goes into putting together a hand-built Lamborghini. During manufacture, workers hand-bend over 350 plumbing tubes for the combustion chamber and nozzle using wooden frames as the guide. Surely there is a better way.

[Prober]

To be able to be produced "in quantity" the parts would need to be redesigned so that they could be manufactured on automated systems which would basicly be a new engine anyway.

I don't recall who said that (Gary Hudson?), but your reply suggests that you disagree with it.

From Gen Shelton's testimony before Congress he states the RL-10 manufacturing process is largly a by-hand process using not much better than hand tools. Also the way the parts are designed, using automated manufacturing for these parts would prove to be very difficult. So until the parts are redesigned your stuck with the high costs due to such a high manpower intensive process. Produceing higher quantities this way will not help very much.

Sure a Channel wall type engine could be done as a decent conversion.  The RL-10 "might" just fall into the custom parts definition "finished parts = one".

Another issue I see is that the backlog of orders "value" would be affected.

[A_M_Swallow]

For GEO missions that makes sense. I don't understand the connection to BEO missions, though. Do those require the upper stage to perform operations above LEO?

Where are trans-lunar injections performed?
Is the upper stage involved in high orbit burns for flights to EML-1/2?

[Jim]

For GEO missions that makes sense. I don't understand the connection to BEO missions, though. Do those require the upper stage to perform operations above LEO?

Where are trans-lunar injections performed?
Is the upper stage involved in high orbit burns for flights to EML-1/2?

That has nothing to do with this thread. 

[cleonard]

Before I start, thanks for the excellent info on the RL-10.  It's what basically a 50 year old design.  Time for something new?

OK, back to what I wanted to post about.

Since I've never worked for either operation I can't be sure, but I have a feeling that the management structure is very different between ULS and Spacex.  Numerous Vice Presidents, lots of high level management, and an army of middle management none of who do real work and lots of meetings have very high costs.  I'm thinking that Spacex might well save a few or maybe even more than a few million here alone.

I not sure if this number is correct, but isn't SpaceX charging an extra $30 million or something close to that for NASA launches?  I'm thinking meeting after meeting and ream upon ream of basically useless paper.  Sure there is some extra actual engineering work, but I'd bet it's only a fraction of that $30 million.  Hey when you have a contract and you are getting paid, you do whatever the customer requires.

I say this because I've worked at gigantic top tier military contractors and I've worked for lean startups.

[joek]

I not sure if this number is correct, but isn't SpaceX charging an extra $30 million or something close to that for NASA launches?  I'm thinking meeting after meeting and ream upon ream of basically useless paper.  Sure there is some extra actual engineering work, but I'd bet it's only a fraction of that $30 million.  Hey when you have a contract and you are getting paid, you do whatever the customer requires.

Think of the $20-30M* premium for NASA mission assurance as the government equivalent to commercial paying an underwriter launch insurance premiums.  The costs are not all that different, there's a significant amount of paperwork and time involved, and the "actual engineering" contributed by the process is typically low (or should be).


* Musk once mentioned "about $20M" for NASA mission assurance.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

Jason-3 is now on the SpaceX manifest.

Last item in 2014 out of VAFB.

[Jim]

  I'm thinking meeting after meeting and ream upon ream of basically useless paper. 

Far from it.  The meetings and documents required are in the contract for all to see.

[Zed_Noir]

Jason-3 is now on the SpaceX manifest.

Last item in 2014 out of VAFB.

Ftom the July 30th entry on the SpaceX update webpage:

SpaceX expects to launch Jason-3 aboard its Falcon 9 rocket in late 2014, from SpaceX’s launch and landing site at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California.

Wonder what SpaceX meant by launch and landing site. 

[Jim]

Wonder what SpaceX meant by launch and landing site. 

Been on many threads.  It is for reusable first stages.

[catdlr]

Was announced from this New Release from the Landsat DCM flight

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2013/feb/HQ_M13-028_Bolden-Salazar_Landsat_prt.htm

Bolden will visit the SpaceX launch pad at 1:30 p.m. The launch pad, which is being built at Space Launch Complex-4, will support the SpaceX Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy rockets. In 2015, a Falcon 9 rocket will launch the Jason-3 sea surface monitoring mission from Vandenberg.

[sdsds]

It's worth noting that on July 16, 2012, NASA said, "NASA has selected [SpaceX] to launch [Jason-3] in December 2014 aboard a Falcon 9 v1.0 rocket from [SLC-4].

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2012/jul/HQ_C12-029_RSLP-20_Launch_Services.html

[QuantumG]

It's worth noting that on July 16, 2012, NASA said, "NASA has selected [SpaceX] to launch [Jason-3] in December 2014 aboard a Falcon 9 v1.0 rocket from [SLC-4].

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2012/jul/HQ_C12-029_RSLP-20_Launch_Services.html

Which is impossible.

[Lurker Steve]

It's worth noting that on July 16, 2012, NASA said, "NASA has selected [SpaceX] to launch [Jason-3] in December 2014 aboard a Falcon 9 v1.0 rocket from [SLC-4].

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2012/jul/HQ_C12-029_RSLP-20_Launch_Services.html

Which is impossible.

Not impossible, just inprobable. It's entirely possible that SpaceX could build a F9 V1.0, unless they have destroyed all of the tooling in the factory of course. They won't forget how to built Merlin 1Cs or that first stage design. It's just that they would rather build whatever is the current iteration of the F9 launcher in 2014. Who knows, they might even be up to V1.2 or V1.3 by then.

[Jim]

Who knows, they might even be up to V1.2 or V1.3 by then.

Those would not be on contract.

[pippin]

Not impossible, just inprobable.

Don't think so. I don't believe they have or are planning to build a launch facility for Falcon 9 1.0 in Vandenberg.

[Lurker Steve]

Who knows, they might even be up to V1.2 or V1.3 by then.

Those would not be on contract.

Right. SpaceX has to deliver what is specified in the contract.
If the contract says they need to launch a F9 V1.0 from a West Coast pad, then they had better build one, or cancel the launch contract/return the deposit now.