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

[Kim Keller]

I think the confusion is that the USAF considers the fairing as part of the common vehicle configuration but NASA doesn't.  So, for DoD certification CRS launches can't be counted but for NASA cert. they can be.

The PLF was definitely part of the NASA certification effort. It should be noted here that NASA's approach to LV certification is actually rather flexible. A great deal of discussion among division and branch chiefs, and the Office of the Chief Engineer determines what needs to be looked at, and if fewer or more than the codified number of launches is required.

[deruch]

Dragon flights are no more different from regular flights of v1.1 than, say, Atlas V 401 are from 501 flights.

I think the confusion is that the USAF considers the fairing as part of the common vehicle configuration but NASA doesn't.  So, for DoD certification CRS launches can't be counted but for NASA cert. they can be.

Are you certain about that?

Apparently, that (mis?)understanding was based on a misreading of NASA's LSP-PLN-324.01 (.pdf) which sets forth the criteria to be used by the KSC ELV Program Office to certify any launch vehicle configuration and provides NASA's definitions of applicable terms.  In it, changes to the PLF are listed as an example of modifications/upgrades that don't require recertification as a new configuration.

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.  [emphasis added]

Though I can't seem to find it, I had seen a USAF document that gave the service's definitions and, while otherwise the same, it explicitly listed PLF.  Whereas, based on Kim's comment, I guess NASA includes it in "and hardware" without explicitly listing it.  For clarity's sake, I always understood NASA to have evaluated the PLF for certification.  Just that they would also consider launches with the Dragon as payload instead of solely encapsulated S/C for inclusion in the certification process.

[baldusi]

I believe that if SpaceX offered a 4m fairing or 25m x 5.2m fairing, they would fall under the last clause. But Dragon attaches directly to the US, and the aerodynamics is different. So the interfaces, attachments and separation mechanisms of the fairing version are simply not there. That part of the vehicle will probably not count towards certification.
I would guess, that when they field the v1.2, the fairing and attachment parts will, actually, count towards certification of the v1.1. But the v1.2, with over rated engines, densified propellant, new interstage and enlarged upper stage will probably need some delta certification. Company, processes, etc., will already by certified.
Let's hope that after Jason-3 they go for the Cat 3 certification.

[Kim Keller]

I believe that if SpaceX offered a 4m fairing or 25m x 5.2m fairing, they would fall under the last clause. But Dragon attaches directly to the US, and the aerodynamics is different. So the interfaces, attachments and separation mechanisms of the fairing version are simply not there. That part of the vehicle will probably not count towards certification.
I would guess, that when they field the v1.2, the fairing and attachment parts will, actually, count towards certification of the v1.1. But the v1.2, with over rated engines, densified propellant, new interstage and enlarged upper stage will probably need some delta certification. Company, processes, etc., will already by certified.
Let's hope that after Jason-3 they go for the Cat 3 certification.

Certification establishes a baseline accepted design, i.e. Falcon 9 v1.1 as it exists today. Incremental future changes, such as a larger fairing, do not so much "count toward certification" as they are deemed "qualified" modifications to the baseline vehicle. This is done by review of design, analyses and qualification test data, finally being presented at an engineering review board for acceptance.

BTW, don't get used to that "v1.2" tag. That's not what SX is going to call the next iteration.

[baldusi]

I believe that if SpaceX offered a 4m fairing or 25m x 5.2m fairing, they would fall under the last clause. But Dragon attaches directly to the US, and the aerodynamics is different. So the interfaces, attachments and separation mechanisms of the fairing version are simply not there. That part of the vehicle will probably not count towards certification.
I would guess, that when they field the v1.2, the fairing and attachment parts will, actually, count towards certification of the v1.1. But the v1.2, with over rated engines, densified propellant, new interstage and enlarged upper stage will probably need some delta certification. Company, processes, etc., will already by certified.
Let's hope that after Jason-3 they go for the Cat 3 certification.

Certification establishes a baseline accepted design, i.e. Falcon 9 v1.1 as it exists today. Incremental future changes, such as a larger fairing, do not so much "count toward certification" as they are deemed "qualified" modifications to the baseline vehicle. This is done by review of design, analyses and qualification test data, finally being presented at an engineering review board for acceptance.

But if I'm not mistaken, they are only getting a Cat 2 certificate. I'm assuming they are going to do a Cat 3. And for that the extra flights of the fairing on whatever they call the enhanced F9, might count for engineering as well as the Dragon launches might help towards most of the rest of the stage. If I'm not mistaken, they should get 14 v1.1 cores and upper stages and 14 fairing flight by year's end. May be not together. But that should help them for Cat 3, right? Or is the delta-v certification handled differently.

[abaddon]

From the article cited by deruch up above:

However, in January 2011, James Norman, head of NASA’s Launch Services Program (LSP) office, said the agency’s Falcon 9 certification effort was underway at the time: “LSP is working to get it certified, and I think we’re looking at spring 2013 to have it on board” for Cat. 2, mainly for Earth science missions, Norman told a meeting of the NASA Advisory Council’s planetary science subcommittee. “Eventually, it will be a Cat. 3 launch service that will be available for planetary as well.”

But more recently:

“It will depend on what changes, their magnitude, and when the contractor would desire to cut them in,” [NASA spokesman Joshua Buck] says, adding that the agency does not currently plan to certify the vehicle for higher-risk Cat. 3 missions, which would include planetary and astronomy missions.

Looking at the LSP launch manifest (http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/NASA_FPB_02_12_15_Manifest_Release_3_02_2015.pdf) it looks like almost all of the future missions out through FY19 are already slotted on LVs, mostly Atlas Vs.  So it doesn't look like there's really many more missions from NASA for F9 to win for quite some time anyway.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

From the article cited by deruch up above:

However, in January 2011, James Norman, head of NASA’s Launch Services Program (LSP) office, said the agency’s Falcon 9 certification effort was underway at the time: “LSP is working to get it certified, and I think we’re looking at spring 2013 to have it on board” for Cat. 2, mainly for Earth science missions, Norman told a meeting of the NASA Advisory Council’s planetary science subcommittee. “Eventually, it will be a Cat. 3 launch service that will be available for planetary as well.”

But more recently:

“It will depend on what changes, their magnitude, and when the contractor would desire to cut them in,” [NASA spokesman Joshua Buck] says, adding that the agency does not currently plan to certify the vehicle for higher-risk Cat. 3 missions, which would include planetary and astronomy missions.

Looking at the LSP launch manifest (http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/NASA_FPB_02_12_15_Manifest_Release_3_02_2015.pdf) it looks like almost all of the future missions out through FY19 are already slotted on LVs, mostly Atlas Vs.  So it doesn't look like there's really many more missions from NASA for F9 to win for quite some time anyway.

Additionally, in general Flagship Cat 3 missions are generally heavy payloads with very high delta V planetary trajectories that are beyond the capabilities of an F9. Think Atlas V (551) size which is twice the payload capability of an F9. But an FH would be a candidate for Cat 3 missions where an F9 would never be capable of lifting a Cat 3.

So I would expect that FH would go for a Cat 3 certification and leave F9 at Cat 2.

[Rebel44]

From the article cited by deruch up above:

However, in January 2011, James Norman, head of NASA’s Launch Services Program (LSP) office, said the agency’s Falcon 9 certification effort was underway at the time: “LSP is working to get it certified, and I think we’re looking at spring 2013 to have it on board” for Cat. 2, mainly for Earth science missions, Norman told a meeting of the NASA Advisory Council’s planetary science subcommittee. “Eventually, it will be a Cat. 3 launch service that will be available for planetary as well.”

But more recently:

“It will depend on what changes, their magnitude, and when the contractor would desire to cut them in,” [NASA spokesman Joshua Buck] says, adding that the agency does not currently plan to certify the vehicle for higher-risk Cat. 3 missions, which would include planetary and astronomy missions.

Looking at the LSP launch manifest (http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/NASA_FPB_02_12_15_Manifest_Release_3_02_2015.pdf) it looks like almost all of the future missions out through FY19 are already slotted on LVs, mostly Atlas Vs.  So it doesn't look like there's really many more missions from NASA for F9 to win for quite some time anyway.

Additionally, in general Flagship Cat 3 missions are generally heavy payloads with very high delta V planetary trajectories that are beyond the capabilities of an F9. Think Atlas V (551) size which is twice the payload capability of an F9. But an FH would be a candidate for Cat 3 missions where an F9 would never be capable of lifting a Cat 3.

So I would expect that FH would go for a Cat 3 certification and leave F9 at Cat 2.

I agree, but given how much in common F9 and FH have, they might submit both for Cat. 3. Besides, F9 will IMO be able to qualify relatively easily - certification demads for option with high number of successfull flight appers to be much less demanding. FH wont have as many flights, so it will need to go through more demanding process.

[deruch]

From the article cited by deruch up above:

However, in January 2011, James Norman, head of NASA’s Launch Services Program (LSP) office, said the agency’s Falcon 9 certification effort was underway at the time: “LSP is working to get it certified, and I think we’re looking at spring 2013 to have it on board” for Cat. 2, mainly for Earth science missions, Norman told a meeting of the NASA Advisory Council’s planetary science subcommittee. “Eventually, it will be a Cat. 3 launch service that will be available for planetary as well.”

But more recently:

“It will depend on what changes, their magnitude, and when the contractor would desire to cut them in,” [NASA spokesman Joshua Buck] says, adding that the agency does not currently plan to certify the vehicle for higher-risk Cat. 3 missions, which would include planetary and astronomy missions.

Looking at the LSP launch manifest (http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/NASA_FPB_02_12_15_Manifest_Release_3_02_2015.pdf) it looks like almost all of the future missions out through FY19 are already slotted on LVs, mostly Atlas Vs.  So it doesn't look like there's really many more missions from NASA for F9 to win for quite some time anyway.

Additionally, in general Flagship Cat 3 missions are generally heavy payloads with very high delta V planetary trajectories that are beyond the capabilities of an F9. Think Atlas V (551) size which is twice the payload capability of an F9. But an FH would be a candidate for Cat 3 missions where an F9 would never be capable of lifting a Cat 3.

So I would expect that FH would go for a Cat 3 certification and leave F9 at Cat 2.

Agreed, but it isn't only flagship Class A payloads that require a Cat 3 LV.  Most Class B payloads do as well.  See Kim Keller's post:

JASON-3 is a class B payload. It's rare for a Class B to ride a Cat 2 LV, but the project decided to accept some extra level of risk.

[Robotbeat]

Dragon flights are no more different from regular flights of v1.1 than, say, Atlas V 401 are from 501 flights.

NASA classifies 501 as different core configuration since the Centaur is encapsulated.

Indeed! Thanks.

[TrueBlueWitt]

...
BTW, don't get used to that "v1.2" tag. That's not what SX is going to call the next iteration.

Given that 1 to 1.1 was effectively an all new launch vehicle.. 
this update should only be something like 1.1.1 or 1.1a

[Helodriver]

Seeing how the current scheduled launch time for this mission is in the middle of the night and there is (planned) to be an RTLS it makes me wonder something. Does or will the returning stage have a strobe or any lights on it for tracking? Clearly when the center Merlin is firing it will be visible, but for that long fall at terminal velocity before the landing burn that vehicle is going to be near impossible to see. It stands to reason a couple cheap strobe lights on the interstage could be pretty useful for chase planes and ground tracking cameras.

[meekGee]

Seeing how the current scheduled launch time for this mission is in the middle of the night and there is (planned) to be an RTLS it makes me wonder something. Does or will the returning stage have a strobe or any lights on it for tracking? Clearly when the center Merlin is firing it will be visible, but for that long fall at terminal velocity before the landing burn that vehicle is going to be near impossible to see. It stands to reason a couple cheap strobe lights on the interstage could be pretty useful for chase planes and ground tracking cameras.

I was wondering about that ever since we started talking about the F9R....   Only because I find the concept of a rocket with nav lights or strobes to be just hella cool.    On the legs, please.   (I'm prepared for disappointment though...)

[Zed_Noir]

Seeing how the current scheduled launch time for this mission is in the middle of the night and there is (planned) to be an RTLS it makes me wonder something. Does or will the returning stage have a strobe or any lights on it for tracking? Clearly when the center Merlin is firing it will be visible, but for that long fall at terminal velocity before the landing burn that vehicle is going to be near impossible to see. It stands to reason a couple cheap strobe lights on the interstage could be pretty useful for chase planes and ground tracking cameras.

I was wondering about that ever since we started talking about the F9R....   Only because I find the concept of a rocket with nav lights or strobes to be just hella cool.    On the legs, please.   (I'm prepared for disappointment though...)

Wonder if they can add some strobe lights on the grid-fan tips.

[meekGee]

Seeing how the current scheduled launch time for this mission is in the middle of the night and there is (planned) to be an RTLS it makes me wonder something. Does or will the returning stage have a strobe or any lights on it for tracking? Clearly when the center Merlin is firing it will be visible, but for that long fall at terminal velocity before the landing burn that vehicle is going to be near impossible to see. It stands to reason a couple cheap strobe lights on the interstage could be pretty useful for chase planes and ground tracking cameras.

I was wondering about that ever since we started talking about the F9R....   Only because I find the concept of a rocket with nav lights or strobes to be just hella cool.    On the legs, please.   (I'm prepared for disappointment though...)

Wonder if they can add some strobe lights on the grid-fan tips.

In addition to looking even cooler than leg-lights, it will also help confirm that the right side is pointing up.

[Mariusuiram]

While this sounds cool, it they really did a late landing burn imagine staring into the pitch black night sky with only a subtle whistling sound, then suddenly you have an engine burst with light and the delayed  boom hits you.

[Kim Keller]

Seeing how the current scheduled launch time for this mission is in the middle of the night and there is (planned) to be an RTLS it makes me wonder something. Does or will the returning stage have a strobe or any lights on it for tracking? Clearly when the center Merlin is firing it will be visible, but for that long fall at terminal velocity before the landing burn that vehicle is going to be near impossible to see. It stands to reason a couple cheap strobe lights on the interstage could be pretty useful for chase planes and ground tracking cameras.

How many nav & strobe lights on the Shuttle Orbiters? Zero. In this age of radar, GPS/telemetry, and IR tracking cameras they're unnecessary weight/complexity.

[HIP2BSQRE]

if they dont launch on 7-22 when is the next window?

[Kim Keller]

But if I'm not mistaken, they are only getting a Cat 2 certificate. I'm assuming they are going to do a Cat 3. And for that the extra flights of the fairing on whatever they call the enhanced F9, might count for engineering as well as the Dragon launches might help towards most of the rest of the stage. If I'm not mistaken, they should get 14 v1.1 cores and upper stages and 14 fairing flight by year's end. May be not together. But that should help them for Cat 3, right? Or is the delta-v certification handled differently.

Getting to Cat 3 will probably be done through Flight Margin Verification ERBs (FMVs). These entail a very close review of a certain number of missions' flight data, comparing that set to earlier flights and to component/subsystem specifications. This allows us to determine if, perhaps, some "bullets are being dodged" - that is, getting exceptionally close to the performance limit of a particular piece, with failure waiting just beyond. There have already been a number of FMVs held, and if SX wants Cat 3 (and why wouldn't they?) there will be more.

The FMVs also allow us to establish a "family" of data for each component. With enough missions we can tell at a glance whether or not some component is performing to expected levels ("in family"). "Out of family" data signatures would point directly to something that needs a deeper look, so we know why it doesn't match expected values.

At the same time, there will be ongoing reviews of design changes and how that affects the overall qualification of the vehicle. We expect to see many of these because, as Dr. McCoy said, "I know engineers - they LOVE to change things!"

[sdsds]

...
BTW, don't get used to that "v1.2" tag. That's not what SX is going to call the next iteration.

Given that 1 to 1.1 was effectively an all new launch vehicle.. 
this update should only be something like 1.1.1 or 1.1a

Or they could follow the Russian naming pattern. My vote would be for F9-UR. It would still be possible for people to say "eff nine-er" but the pronunciation would need to be like "eff nine-ur."

The "R" obviously is for "recoverable." The "U" could be for "unified" or "unitary" or some such....