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

[ZachS09]

I mean, Jason 3 and 2 are both part of the Ocean Surface Topography Mission (OSTM).

[Mariusuiram]

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?

There was article somewhere that SpaceX was going straight for Category 2 certification instead of first doing Cat 3; and that Jason-3 was Category 2.

[beancounter]

Why wouldn't they simpll go straight to Cat 1 and be done with it?
Cheers

[abaddon]

Why wouldn't they simpll go straight to Cat 1 and be done with it?
Cheers

Presumably because it would take longer.

I recall reading that Cat 1 can be achieved by a certain number of flights (14?).  It's likely that before any new Cat 1 class mission that SpaceX could win that they will already have Cat 1 certification due to that provision.

From memory, so please feel free to correct me if I am wrong .

[ugordan]

Why wouldn't they simpll go straight to Cat 1 and be done with it?

Sure. Who's paying?

[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?

There was article somewhere that SpaceX was going straight for Category 2 certification instead of first doing Cat 3; and that Jason-3 was Category 2.

It's the other way around, LV are Category 1,2,3, with 1 (say initial launch of Pegasus) being high risk and 3 being low risk (say nuclear rated Atlas V). Payloads, on the other hand, are Category A,B,C,D, with A being extremely sensitive payloads (say, Curiosity), and D being technology demo missions, or CRS.
So, my question was if they were going straight to Category 1 (most stringent) certification. I understand that Jason-2 is a category B payload, which, depending on mission parameters, require either Category 2 or 3 LV.

[ugordan]

http://aviationweek.com/space/upgraded-falcon-9-may-need-additional-certification

[Comga]

http://aviationweek.com/space/upgraded-falcon-9-may-need-additional-certification

This is an almost information free article.  One of the few definitive statements is:

“Our certification activity will be completed before NASA’s first use of this configuration next year,” (NASA spokesman Joshua ) Buck says.

"Next year"?
NASA has been working on certifying Falcon since 2011.
They thought they would be done in 2013.
SpaceX may or may not have to "re-accomplish" certification tasks for any given change. 
NASA added requirements because SpaceX doesn't vacuum test the second stage on the ground.  (I believe that SpaceX has vacuum tested 19 Merlin 1 engines in space, with multiple starts on most and no major issues for the last 13 or so.)

“Our current Category 2 certification effort assumes the use of an un-refurbished core stage,”

Of course.  There are no refurbished corse to certify.  SpaceX has none to offer.

Can anyone point out a previously unknown fact in this article?

A launch date of July 22 was just posted for Jason.  Doesn't this say that that the certification has a projected end date?

[LastStarFighter]

http://aviationweek.com/space/upgraded-falcon-9-may-need-additional-certification

This is an almost information free article.  One of the few definitive statements is:

“Our certification activity will be completed before NASA’s first use of this configuration next year,” (NASA spokesman Joshua ) Buck says.

"Next year"?
NASA has been working on certifying Falcon since 2011.
They thought they would be done in 2013.
SpaceX may or may not have to "re-accomplish" certification tasks for any given change. 
NASA added requirements because SpaceX doesn't vacuum test the second stage on the ground.  (I believe that SpaceX has vacuum tested 19 Merlin 1 engines in space, with multiple starts on most and no major issues for the last 13 or so.)

Are they not referring to the RL-10-C1 certification mentioned directly above that part? Just how I read it.

Edit/Lar... trying to sort out quotes. The original post implied Comga said something that actually the article said. Replaced. If that's still not right, LastStarfighter should engage Comga in discussion to sort out what is really going on here.

[Prober]

http://aviationweek.com/space/upgraded-falcon-9-may-need-additional-certification

This is an almost information free article.  One of the few definitive statements is:

“Our certification activity will be completed before NASA’s first use of this configuration next year,” (NASA spokesman Joshua ) Buck says.

"Next year"?
NASA has been working on certifying Falcon since 2011.
They thought they would be done in 2013.
SpaceX may or may not have to "re-accomplish" certification tasks for any given change. 
NASA added requirements because SpaceX doesn't vacuum test the second stage on the ground.  (I believe that SpaceX has vacuum tested 19 Merlin 1 engines in space, with multiple starts on most and no major issues for the last 13 or so.)

“Our current Category 2 certification effort assumes the use of an un-refurbished core stage,”

Of course.  There are no refurbished corse to certify.  SpaceX has none to offer.

Can anyone point out a previously unknown fact in this article?

A launch date of July 22 was just posted for Jason.  Doesn't this say that that the certification has a projected end date?

"However, if the design changes are significant, they could prevent SpaceX from lifting sensitive civil and military payloads on the retooled Falcon 9 without subjecting it to further scrutiny beyond U.S. Air Force and NASA launch-vehicle certification efforts already underway."

An optimized Merlin 1D engine and other enhancements to the Falcon 9 v1.1

what other enhancements?

[LastStarFighter]

what other enhancements?

Densification, 10% second stage stretch, landing legs, grid fins, etc. Not sure what they originally had submitted for certification though. Nor do I know what NASA considers enhancements and what they think would be significant enough. I'm sure spacex (and all of us) think these are all small changes but maybe NASA doesn't.

[deruch]

what other enhancements?

Densification, 10% second stage stretch, landing legs, grid fins, etc. Not sure what they originally had submitted for certification though. Nor do I know what NASA considers enhancements and what they think would be significant enough. I'm sure spacex (and all of us) think these are all small changes but maybe NASA doesn't.

NASA defines these things in LSP-PLN-324.01:

2.0    Implementation
...
2.3    Upgrades or modifications to a certified common vehicle configuration do not require re-certification. For upgraded or modified vehicle configurations, NASA requires technical insight into the design, manufacturing, testing, integration, and launch of the affected systems and launch vehicle. 

2.4 Significant changes to a certified common vehicle configuration would be considered a new launch vehicle and therefore requires a new certification.
...

3.0   DEFINITIONS 
Certified Common Vehicle Configuration:  A common vehicle configuration which has met the requirements defined in this document for a specific payload risk category.

Common Vehicle Configuration:  A distinct combination of core propulsive stages and hardware used to deliver payloads to earth orbit or escape trajectories.

Core Propulsive Stages:  All propulsive stages except strap-on motors, final stages (exclusively used for orbit circularization or escape), and trim stages.

Common Vehicle Configuration Upgrades or Modifications:  Items that do not substantially affect operating time, total impulse, and/or the thrust profile of one or more propulsive stages are considered upgrades or modifications to the certified common vehicle configuration. Examples of upgrades and modifications include changes in software, payload fairing, payload electrical/mechanical interfaces, incorporation of mission-unique requirements, and the addition or deletion of a final stage (exclusively used for orbit circularization or escape), strap-on motors, and/or trim stage. Upgrades or modifications are not to be interpreted as common vehicle configuration changes.

Common Vehicle Configuration Changes:  Items that substantially affect the airframe integrity, operating time, total impulse and/or thrust profile of one or more core propulsive stages are considered changes to the certified common vehicle configuration. Examples of vehicle configuration changes include the replacement of engine types, core propulsive stages, and/or major airframe structures. 

Though I guess in relation to SpaceX's plans, this leaves me wondering exactly how NASA chooses to define "substantially affect".  My plain language reading of it is that the upgrades would be considered "Changes" as opposed to "Upgrades or Modifications".   

[Comga]

.....
"However, if the design changes are significant, t..."

Yes "If"
Duh.  Of course.  "If the changes are significant" but no definition of "significant" or statement that any particular change was significant.

"If wishes were horses then beggars would ride." 

Information free

Now I asked a question that isn't being answered:  What is the significance of announcing July 22 as THE NET launch date for Jason? SpaceX saying certification is complete?  SpaceX saying NASA saying the certification is ALMOST complete?  SpaceX trying to needlessly exercise the range?

[deruch]

.....
"However, if the design changes are significant, t..."

Yes "If"
Duh.  Of course.  "If the changes are significant" but no definition of "significant" or statement that any particular change was significant.

See above post with definitional differences between "upgrades and modifications" and "configuration changes".  I know it isn't 100% but it's the best out there until a NASA authority speaks on the issue directly

What is the significance of announcing July 22 as THE NET launch date for Jason? SpaceX saying certification is complete?  SpaceX saying NASA saying the certification is ALMOST complete?  SpaceX trying to needlessly exercise the range?

Where did you see SpaceX announcing the 22nd as the date?  There's no press release on their website and no tweets from either @SpaceX or @elonmusk on the subject.  I've seen it from CNES and the European equivalent to NOAA (I forget the acronym).  And now on JPL's Jason-3 mission page (http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/missions/jason-3), which I just checked, it's also listed as July 22nd as opposed to just "July 2015".  But none of these are SpaceX announcements so I can't understand how they are SpaceX "saying" anything.  As to what all the other mission partners announcing a launch date of the 22nd means, I take it to mean that NASA is confident that certification will be completed before then.  But then again, at this point it's just a NET date and could easily slip right.

Plus, it's not clear that they've officially requested the date from the range yet.  At least, I haven't seen anything to suggest that they have so your last question seem pretty out of line to me (hard to tell tone in text based discussion, so maybe I'm off base).  Why would NASA agree to a timeline that they weren't confident in?  Even if SpaceX officially asked the range for the date, exactly how much planning and exercise do you imagine is required by the range 4 months ahead of time that would end up being wasted if the date slipped 2 months from now?

[su27k]

http://aviationweek.com/space/upgraded-falcon-9-may-need-additional-certification

Can anyone point out a previously unknown fact in this article?

For us poor souls without L2, the following are previously unknown facts (Jim hinted this but not in so much detail):

Although NASA’s certification strategy for the Falcon 9 v1.1 required three flights of the rocket, the fact that SpaceX never vacuum-tested the upper stage on the ground prompted the agency to add two additional missions to achieve certification.

“NASA required SpaceX to add additional instrumentation and complete five consecutive successful flights of the Falcon 9 v1.1, rather than the three that are required [for Cat. 2 certification] in order to provide upper-stage engine performance data while operating in a vacuum,” Schierholz said, adding that those missions have all been successfully flown.

...

Although LSP would not disclose the amount of money NASA has spent to date on certifying the Falcon 9, the agency did invest approximately $1 million in the development of additional instrumentation installed on the five SpaceX flights to generate data on the upper-stage engine performance in a vacuum. Buck says LSP—which has an annual budget of around $87 million—did not augment its workforce as a result.

Also note 3rd v1.1 is in January 2014, while the 5th is in July 2014, the long delay between these may explain the delay of NASA certification and JASON-3?

[schaban]

But this is NOT 3rd/5th F9v1.1 flights these years. I think they already flew 10 times or so...
Edit: never mind. see that those are for 2014, not this year...

[abaddon]

Is there any correlation with those dates and when we started seeing video of the fuel tank on S2 on broadcasts?  I can't remember when that first started showing up offhand...

[Robotbeat]

I'm not sure up-rated first stage engines (as was done with the SSMEs), some propellant densification (lowering the temperature of the oxidizer) and a 10% volume increase of the upper stage count as "significant." Each is an incremental change, much smaller than the v1.0-> v1.1 transition which changed the entire structural arrangement of the first stage and it's thrust structure (and the octoweb which replaced it).

(Then again, I didn't consider v1.0->v1.1 that big of a change until I saw the difference, so I easily could be wrong.)

Clearly, though, insight is necessary either way (partially to /determine/ if it's "significant").

[SpaceXfan]

Might be a RTLS!

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/03/spaceport-america-spacex-reusability-testing/

If things fall into place before.

[fgonella]

Is this going into polar orbit? If not, launching from Vanderberg, couldn't they land the FS down range at the Cape  instead of RTLS?