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

[deruch]

The irony might be that if they don't require a fairing for counting successful launches, by Jason-3 they might end having the 14 successes in a row that make it almost a rubber stamp (in comparison) to certify for Category 3.

Ha.  Unfortunately the criterion for that evaluation is launches in a common configuration (which includes the fairing).  I still don't understand how they planned to deal with this issue for the F9v1.0 before the switch-a-roo.  But that's moot now. 

[Somewhat OT] IMHO, I think the "certification delay" for this mission and the USAF's delay in certifying the F9v1.1 for EELV are related.  The timing and duration of both announcements is too coincidental for me otherwise.  Taking Sec.AF's statements at face value that the remaining issues are engineering and not just process related, to me that suggests that maybe the AF saw/found something during one of the previous launches that concerned them.  In that case, it wouldn't matter how many successful launches SpaceX had put together.  There would still be a detailed analysis of the issue done.
[/OT]

[OnWithTheShow]

There is a ustream event about this mission airing in about 20 minutes for those interested. http://ustream.tv/NASAJPL2

[OnWithTheShow]

So in regards to the launch the project scientist said hopefully "this summer" specifically "July". He said NASA had "a lot of hoops" for SpaceX to jump through to become "certified" to launch "one of their babies". Dont know if he was simplifying it since from all reports it is the Air Force holding up certification.

[ugordan]

NASA certification has nothing to do with Air Force certification.

[Norm38]

NASA runs NOAA missions until the spacecraft is checked out.

I don't get it.  If NASA handled the launch of DISCVR on F9, how is F9 not automatically approved by NASA for Jason3?  How did DISCOVR get launched? Why the compartmentalization, and for what purpose?

[ugordan]

Air Force was supplying the launch service for DSCOVR for NASA/NOAA, it was more of a demonstration flight for AF from SpaceX so it's an exception and not a rule.

DSCOVR was a low risk payload, Jason 3 is higher risk and the launch is directly procured and managed through NASA Launch Services Program. For DSCOVR, USAF provided the ride, for Jason 3 NASA is paying for it.

[SpaceDave]

NASA runs NOAA missions until the spacecraft is checked out.

I don't get it.  If NASA handled the launch of DISCVR on F9, how is F9 not automatically approved by NASA for Jason3?  How did DISCOVR get launched? Why the compartmentalization, and for what purpose?

NASA did not handle the launch of DSCOVR. That was on a USAF contract vehicle.

Neither NASA nor USAF have yet certified the Falcon 9 for high-value payloads.

NASA awarded SpX a commercial cargo contract for bringing up food, clothing, spare parts, etc.
USAF awarded SpX a developmental contract for launching DSCOVR -- which is considered to be a low-value payload in terms of cost. (If anything, DSCOVR's contributions to operational space weather data have been understated. Many of the sensors we rely on today are at, or significantly beyond, EOL.)

For these low-value payloads, which are typically less than $100 million in cost and often replaceable, launch services, which are often more than $100 million, are a very large part of the total program cost. High value payloads, on the other hand, can easily exceed $1 billion in cost, and may run tens of milions of dollars per year in operational expenses during an on-orbit lifetime that may exceed fifteen years. Some of these payloads are effectively unique and hard to replace. We are talking things like NASA Flagship programs and DOD missile warning satellites. In those cases, launch services amount to a small part of total program cost, and the need for something approaching 100% success is very high. Achieving mission assurance for those payloads is the aim of the New Entrant Certification process.

NASA's policy has been to award New Entrants launch contracts while their certification process is ongoing, but NASA will not actually allow launch until certification is complete. That's what's going on with Jason 3.

USAF has been a little more conservative. USAF will allow New Entrants to bid on launch contracts, but will not award contracts to a provider who has not yet been certified -- this avoids launch delays, but perhaps at the risk of leaving New Entrants bidders feeling like the goal posts have been moved on them.

[SpaceDave]

The USAF certification and the NASA certification are entirely separate processes by two different organizations. Jason 3 is being delayed because NASA has not yet certified the rocket. It is not waiting on the Air Force.

http://spacenews.com/despite-6-iss-flights-spacex-still-awaits-nasa-launch-certification/

[ugordan]

Guys, that's really got nothing to do with Jason 3.

[AncientU]

Guys, that's really got nothing to do with Jason 3.

Unless the NASA and USAF certifications are hung on the same issue... no idea if true, but timing is suggestive.

[ugordan]

http://spacenews.com/despite-6-iss-flights-spacex-still-awaits-nasa-launch-certification

[abaddon]

Mike Gruss ‏@Gruss_SN

Deborah Lee James: Air Force hopes to complete a review on what SpaceX needs to be certified ASAP by next month.

What?  Can someone translate this into English?

I read it as "AF hopes to complete a review by next month on what SpaceX needs (to do) to be certified ASAP."  But yeah, twitterese can be difficult to parse sometimes.

[OSE]

Mike Gruss ‏@Gruss_SN

Deborah Lee James: Air Force hopes to complete a review on what SpaceX needs to be certified ASAP by next month.

What?  Can someone translate this into English?

I read it as "AF hopes to complete a review by next month on what SpaceX needs (to do) to be certified ASAP."  But yeah, twitterese can be difficult to parse sometimes.

This really makes it sound like the people managing the AF certification are completely incompetent. They need to have a review to find out what else needs to be done? Why isn't their statement something like: ``SpaceX has [X number] of open items. Certification will be complete when these are addressed.''

A list of open items really seems like the kind of thing that should be actively managed throughout the process instead of requiring a review.

[deruch]

NASA certification has nothing to do with Air Force certification.

I don't think this is really true.  Yes, each organization is independently certifying the F9 as an acceptable launcher.  But they share data and analysis results.  That was the point of my comment upthread.  The timing of the AF's delay announcement coincided very closely with the announcement of the delay for Jason-3--reportedly due to a delay in NASA certification.  That coincidence of events has lead me to believe (though I have no empirical evidence to support it) that they are in fact due to the same issue needing to be addressed.  i.e. The AF raises a new issue that hadn't been discovered/discussed earlier in the process and simultaneously informs NASA about their concerns regarding this issue----> NASA concurs that it is a concern and delays Jason-3 until that issue can be fully addressed.

Again, this belief is based solely on the timing and could certainly be post hoc ergo propter hoc (illogical).

[Salo]

https://twitter.com/Spaceport_Mag/status/573941921300811776

SPACEPORT MAGAZINE ‏@Spaceport_Mag

.@NASA 's Jason-3 launch atop a @SpaceX #falcon9 rocket is set for July 22, at 12:27am PDT, 3:27am EDT, from #VAFB in California. @NASA_EO

[Jim]

I don't think this is really true.  Yes, each organization is independently certifying the F9 as an acceptable launcher.  But they share data and analysis results.  That was the point of my comment upthread.  The timing of the AF's delay announcement coincided very closely with the announcement of the delay for Jason-3--reportedly due to a delay in NASA certification.  That coincidence of events has lead me to believe (though I have no empirical evidence to support it) that they are in fact due to the same issue needing to be addressed.  i.e. The AF raises a new issue that hadn't been discovered/discussed earlier in the process and simultaneously informs NASA about their concerns regarding this issue----> NASA concurs that it is a concern and delays Jason-3 until that issue can be fully addressed.

Again, this belief is based solely on the timing and could certainly be post hoc ergo propter hoc (illogical).

It is true and the delays are not related.

[rcoppola]

WRT certification for Jason3. (Tangentially off-topic)

Is/was part of the certification delay(s) attributable to SpaceX wanting the full-up F9R certified for this flight and not the expendable F9? Meaning they want all the systems, ie. grid fins, legs etc., and all associated sub-systems and software included within the certification?

That in and of itself potentially shows the unrelated nature of the delays between NASA and USAF Cert as I don't think the USAF is certifying the F9R at this point. Or have I missed something. Jim?

[Jim]

NASA isn't certifying the systems involved with recovery.  It is only making sure that they don't interfere with the primary mission.

[baldusi]

NASA isn't certifying the systems involved with recovery.  It is only making sure that they don't interfere with the primary mission.

Jason-3 is a class B payload? F9 will get Category 2 or 3?

[ZachS09]

The launch time at 12:27 AM PDT is best suited for Jason 3 because seven years ago, Jason 2 launched at nearly the same midnight timeframe.