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

[deruch]

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!"

I would imagine that having the actual flown hardware in the form of a returned 1st stage might be useful in that sort of analysis.   

[Kim Keller]

I would imagine that having the actual flown hardware in the form of a returned 1st stage might be useful in that sort of analysis.   

Actually, a lot less than you think. LSP really doesn't care what happens to the first stage after staging. The return will subject S1 to additional loads, altering the total environments that are analyzed for ascent. Inspecting the hardware may yield some useful insights, but LSP really doesn't care as long as the payload is delivered accurately.

In my opinion, it'll be quite some time before NASA puts a payload on a previously flown S1.

[Llian Rhydderch]

I would imagine that having the actual flown hardware in the form of a returned 1st stage might be useful in that sort of analysis.   

Actually, a lot less than you think. LSP really doesn't care what happens to the first stage after staging. The return will subject S1 to additional loads, altering the total environments that are analyzed for ascent. Inspecting the hardware may yield some useful insights, but LSP really doesn't care as long as the payload is delivered accurately.

In my opinion, it'll be quite some time before NASA puts a payload on a previously flown S1.

I agree on the outcome.  It will be quite some time before NASA does that.

But then, given the very different incentives they face than private purchasers of launch services, no one at NASA could really see much personal upside to finding lower-cost ways of doing launches; it is other people's money after all.  On the other hand, selection of a somewhat more risky course, away from business as usual, would have downside risks.

This asymmetry in the incentives is a large part of the explanation for why large amounts of innovation do not occur in the government sector.

[Chris Bergin]

Let's all remember we have reusability threads and even a dedication section, so as always, if there is a splinter conversation, copy the URL/Quote the post, and start a new thread or continue it in an existing thread over there, allowing this thread to focus on Jason-3.

[Kim Keller]

But then, given the very different incentives they face than private purchasers of launch services, no one at NASA could really see much personal upside to finding lower-cost ways of doing launches; it is other people's money after all.  On the other hand, selection of a somewhat more risky course, away from business as usual, would have downside risks.

This asymmetry in the incentives is a large part of the explanation for why large amounts of innovation do not occur in the government sector.

I'm very sorry you believe that. I especially take offense with your statement, "no one at NASA could really see much personal upside to finding lower-cost ways of doing launches; it is other people's money after all". You could not be more wrong, and it betrays no understanding AT ALL of what motivates the people who work in this field, and what actually goes on within NASA.

[mvpel]

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.

I don't know about the orbiters, but Dragon has nav lights.

[Herb Schaltegger]

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.

I don't know about the orbiters, but Dragon has nav lights.

I had that thought initially as well in response to Kim's comment, but then I paused and thought a little bit more. Dragon is intended for proximity operations and grappling by crew members in an orbiting space station. That station passes into darkness every 45 minutes or so, give or take. The nav lights are there for visual confirmation of distance/proximity during orbital night proxops during a safety-critical operation over an extended period of time.

Lights on a ballistically-returning stage wouldn't serve any real analogous purpose. Telemetry, radar and IR imaging are all much better ways to visualize and observe the return.

[matthewkantar]

I had that thought initially as well in response to Kim's comment, but then I paused and thought a little bit more. Dragon is intended for proximity operations and grappling by crew members in an orbiting space station. That station passes into darkness every 45 minutes or so, give or take. The nav lights are there for visual confirmation of distance/proximity during orbital night proxops during a safety-critical operation over an extended period of time.

The shuttle did managed the same trick w/o lights as far as I know. The station has handy task lighting.

[Herb Schaltegger]

The shuttle did managed the same trick w/o lights as far as I know. The station has handy task lighting.

Shuttle also had big lighted windows and bright work lights throughout the payload bay. Further, it was not being controlled remotely from thousands of miles away; it was being actively controlled by on-board crew all the way to active berthing.

[meekGee]

Just for the record, nobody suggested nav lights on the rocket will be necessary.  It doesn't need landing lights either....   We just thought it'd be a cool sight, that's all.   

[Ben the Space Brit]

We just thought it'd be a cool sight, that's all.

And we all know that Elon is enough of a space cadet that 'cool-looking' could be an enormous motivation for him!

[Jim]

But then, given the very different incentives they face than private purchasers of launch services, no one at NASA could really see much personal upside to finding lower-cost ways of doing launches; it is other people's money after all.  On the other hand, selection of a somewhat more risky course, away from business as usual, would have downside risks.

This asymmetry in the incentives is a large part of the explanation for why large amounts of innovation do not occur in the government sector.

Both statements are untrue and without merit.  The real world doesn't fit your abstract view of it.

[Okie_Steve]

Jim, Kim

Based on your experiences with incremental vehicle changes in the past, which if any of the proposed changes for "V1.2" are more or less likely to be problematic or non-issues both operationally and procedurally.

Propellant densification
Up rating M1-D thrust
S2 stretch
Anything else I've forgotten

As an observer I have no real idea how the potential risk of such things is evaluated.

[macpacheco]

I agree on the outcome.  It will be quite some time before NASA does that.

But then, given the very different incentives they face than private purchasers of launch services, no one at NASA could really see much personal upside to finding lower-cost ways of doing launches; it is other people's money after all.  On the other hand, selection of a somewhat more risky course, away from business as usual, would have downside risks.

This asymmetry in the incentives is a large part of the explanation for why large amounts of innovation do not occur in the government sector.

Trying to put myself in NASAs shoes.
The migration from the Shuttle to CRS / CCtCAP  will result in huge savings (already realized for CRS, soon to be realized for CCtCAP).
Its not that NASA don't want further savings, its they don't want extra risks. As soon as SpaceX has launched a dozen payloads with reflown stages, they will accept it for lower risk missions (ie CRS). That's assuming no launch failures leading to payload losses.
For NASA safety / reliability comes ahead of cost savings.

[Kim Keller]

Trying to put myself in NASAs shoes.
The migration from the Shuttle to CRS / CCtCAP  will result in huge savings (already realized for CRS, soon to be realized for CCtCAP).
Its not that NASA don't want further savings, its they don't want extra risks. As soon as SpaceX has launched a dozen payloads with reflown stages, they will accept it for lower risk missions (ie CRS). That's assuming no launch failures leading to payload losses.
For NASA safety / reliability comes ahead of cost savings.

You, sir, get a cigar.

[simonbp]

Rather strangely, the NOAA Jason 3 website doesn't say anything about the launch vehicle, though they do have the launch date. Were they not allowed to say anything until certification?

http://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/jason-3/

[Kim Keller]

Rather strangely, the NOAA Jason 3 website doesn't say anything about the launch vehicle, though they do have the launch date. Were they not allowed to say anything until certification?

http://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/jason-3/

No, there was no gag order in place. People have known for a long time which LV was carrying this mission. NOAA's webpages focus more on their satellite's orbital mission than how they get there.

[fthomassy]

Rather strangely, the NOAA Jason 3 website doesn't say anything about the launch vehicle, though they do have the launch date. Were they not allowed to say anything until certification?

http://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/jason-3/

Why strange?  The mission is not about the launch vehicle even if us launch geeks think so   However, you can find the launch vehicle listed in the Press Kit.

[rcoppola]

The F9 is also prominently included in the Jason 3 Mission video.

[Kim Keller]

Jim, Kim

Based on your experiences with incremental vehicle changes in the past, which if any of the proposed changes for "V1.2" are more or less likely to be problematic or non-issues both operationally and procedurally.

Propellant densification
Up rating M1-D thrust
S2 stretch
Anything else I've forgotten

As an observer I have no real idea how the potential risk of such things is evaluated.

I'm really not sure how to answer that. Any of those has the potential to kill a flight if the design & implementation aren't done right.