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

[Tonioroffo]

Shotwell stated "Months" before next flight so I think there will be no August launch, unless the source of the CRS-7 problem isn't related to S1 or S2?

[ugordan]

Shotwell stated "Months" before next flight so I think there will be no August launch, unless the source of the CRS-7 problem isn't related to S1 or S2?

Won't make August.

Which raises a question: where in the overall launch schedule would Jason 3 now end up? Would LSP be willing to launch it on the first return to flight vehicle? A situation more complicated by the fact that there weren't supposed to be any more non-upgraded v1.1 cores.

I guess it all depends on what the root cause ends up being, but given that LSP got burnt twice by Taurus fairing problems, I still wonder how they feel about this...

[Jim]

Can we boil the above down to the following:

1. IIP overflight of San Miguel is allowed, but IIP overflight of Santa Rosa is not, so that determines easternmost IIP track. From geometry, a launch azimuth of 150 degrees would be ideal, but the above contraints mean the actual launch azimuth will be slightly more southerly.

2. As a result, some yaw steering during ascent will be required to get Jason-3 to its 66 degree inclination.

3. It's not going to be a significant performance hit.

The vehicle will launch towards the ocean first and then steer to the proper azimuth.

[Kabloona]

Unfortunately the loss of CRS-7 means SpaceX lost an opportunity to pull off a successful barge landing of Stage 1 in advance of Jason-3. So if Jason-3 still goes next, that would seem to reduce chances for a boostback attempt to land at Vandenberg.

On the other hand, the delay gives SpaceX more time to outfit Marmac 303 for a downrange landing attempt.

[dglow]

Unfortunately the loss of CRS-7 means SpaceX lost an opportunity to pull off a successful barge landing of Stage 1 in advance of Jason-3. So if Jason-3 still goes next, that would seem to reduce chances for a boostback attempt to land at Vandenberg.

On the other hand, the delay gives SpaceX more time to outfit Marmac 303 for a downrange landing attempt.

True. But Jason-3 is impacted far beyond any go/no-go for RTLS. It's possible SpaceX will demonstrate barge landing with a commercial flight before NASA approves F9 for Jason-3. This will be interesting to watch.

[woods170]

Shotwell stated "Months" before next flight so I think there will be no August launch, unless the source of the CRS-7 problem isn't related to S1 or S2?

Won't make August.

And confirmed by a CNES guy I talk to. Too early to tell when it will launch then but his expectation is that it won't be before the year is out.

[Star One]

Shotwell stated "Months" before next flight so I think there will be no August launch, unless the source of the CRS-7 problem isn't related to S1 or S2?

Won't make August.

And confirmed by a CNES guy I talk to. Too early to tell when it will launch then but his expectation is that it won't be before the year is out.

Could it be moved to another launcher or is this all too late in the day for that?

[woods170]

Shotwell stated "Months" before next flight so I think there will be no August launch, unless the source of the CRS-7 problem isn't related to S1 or S2?

Won't make August.

And confirmed by a CNES guy I talk to. Too early to tell when it will launch then but his expectation is that it won't be before the year is out.

Could it be moved to another launcher or is this all too late in the day for that?

In theory: yes. But practically speaking: no. Not worth the additional cost. Besides, the competition does not have available space in their manifests. Sticking with SpaceX is the nominal thing to do.

[Star One]

Shotwell stated "Months" before next flight so I think there will be no August launch, unless the source of the CRS-7 problem isn't related to S1 or S2?

Won't make August.

And confirmed by a CNES guy I talk to. Too early to tell when it will launch then but his expectation is that it won't be before the year is out.

Could it be moved to another launcher or is this all too late in the day for that?

In theory: yes. But practically speaking: no. Not worth the additional cost. Besides, the competition does not have available space in their manifests. Sticking with SpaceX is the nominal thing to do.

Thanks. I am going to assume that NASA will want to see at least of couple of successful launches of Falcon before even considering okaying this for launch so fairly definitely a slip into 2016.

[baldusi]

[...] I am going to assume that NASA will want to see at least of couple of successful launches of Falcon before even considering okaying this for launch so fairly definitely a slip into 2016.

NASA manages the Jason-3 launch through LSP (Launch Services Program). A new LV would need to go through a bidding process for a certified launcher. Which right now mean Delta II (last one, and un-built) or Atlas V (expensive and already with a strained manifest). I don't see any critical reason for Jason-3 not to wait even a full year to fly. It would be faster and cheaper than any option.
Regarding the launch, as I understand it, is that once a vehicle is certified, it is assumed that anomalies are "one off" things. LSP will obviously have a lot of insight in the failure investigation and if they find that everything was done correctly and all the corrective measures were taken care of, nothing should change in that regard.
Having said that, I understand that Jason-3 is a Class-B payload that can be launched with a Category 2 certified launcher. And they will probably be negotiating with SpaceX about their slot. I understand that SpaceX was going to go with v1.2 launcher after CRS-7/Jason-3, and thus they might simply have no other physical v1.1 to launch. But if they find the root caause and it can be traced back to a subsystem that's also used in v1.2, then they'll probably want to wait for a few launches. Or even switch to a v1.2. And that might take a lot on the certification work alone.

[Dante80]

no idea on credibility.

The next Falcon 9 rocket launch on SpaceX's schedule has been postponed, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The launch was supposed to deliver NOAA's Jason-3 Earth observation satellite to orbit, and was scheduled for August 9th.
The announcement comes little more than 24 hours after SpaceX suffered its first mission failure when a Falcon 9 rocket exploded on its way to the International Space Station. Before that, SpaceX had completed 18 consecutive successful launches of its flagship rocket. The postponed Jason-3 launch was also supposed to be the next test of the Falcon 9's reusability.
A new launch date has not been set, but a NASA spokesperson tells The Verge that the agency is working with NOAA and SpaceX to find a new one. The agencies won't look for another launch provider while SpaceX conducts its internal review.

http://www.theverge.com/2015/6/29/8864751/spacex-falcon-9-launch-postponed-explosion

[Comga]

Thanks. I am going to assume that NASA will want to see at least of couple of successful launches of Falcon before even considering okaying this for launch so fairly definitely a slip into 2016.

That's your assumption but there is no supporting evidence.

A failure that shows up in one flight out of nineteen flights is not going to be meaningfully excluded by a handful of successful flights.  That exclusion will be done by the failure review board.  NASA has done that before, sometimes not successfully, as with the Orbital fairing failures, but most times successfully. 

[AndyX]

Cross posting on request!

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/09/spacex-conducts-falcon-9-improvements-busy-schedule/

Notes:
Summary of some of the notes we've been working with in L2.
Schedule is highly preliminary, but confidence in it was elevated by other sites later noting they think SES-9 will ride first as RTF and the closeness of the CRS-8 date. Still totally preliminary - don't go booking any flights!

A lot of media ran with Ms. Shotwell's comments from AIAA, so tried to avoid copying that as you will already have read it.

A bit of cool stuff on the Dragons and some things you may not have heard about per the "Deep Dive" work and alternative path evaluations (one of which we think caused one journalist to think the struts weren't at fault. That one took a good bit of evaluation to show it was only a check on the fault tree, not a smoking gun, so I can see how that could have been misinterpreted by that other site).

Could have gone on a bit about 2016 with FH, but didn't want to get too wordy and kept it below 1500 words. We'll do something on FH later (probably for a milestone such as pad complete - which it nearly is, or a core shipping, etc.) Same goes with ASDS and Vandy first stage landings.

Please copy this post (all of the post) into the relevant manifest and mission threads, so people have the link and also my note about not booking hotels just yet! ) Just thought it would be a good idea to have a standalone thread, otherwise we may end up with people talking about future Dragons in a Jason-3 thread, etc.

Hope this is useful to you all.

[Paul Howard]

Peter S on Twitter. SpaceX's Shotwell: Jason-3 ocean-altimetry sat to launch on F9 v1.1, not new version, likely in December following NASA review.

Edit...

Oh, we already knew that here!

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/09/spacex-conducts-falcon-9-improvements-busy-schedule/
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/09/full-thrust-falcon-9-stage-testing-mcgregor/

[zubenelgenubi]

Will Jason-3 immediately replace Jason-2?  Or complement Jason-2's operations?

EDIT: I found the answer to my question.  It also answered my next-to-be-asked question here about the orbit.
From the NOAA web site for the Jason-3 mission: http://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/jason-3/mission.html

To ensure continuity of the global sea level record, Jason-3 will fly in the same 9.9 day repeat track orbit as all previous Jason missions, meaning the satellite will make observations over the same ocean point once every 9.9 days. The orbital parameters are: 66.05 degree inclination, 1380 km apogee, 1328 km perigee, 112 minutes per revolution around the earth.

One of the primary objectives of the Jason program is to monitor sea level rise, a challenging task considering the need to maintain high levels of accuracy and precision from one satellite to the next over multiple decades of time. One way to help reach this goal is to avoid gaps in the data record by launching each new Jason satellite while the older Jason satellite is still operating properly. In the first six months after launch, Jason-3 will be flown one minute behind Jason-2/OSTM, in order to detect any offsets between the missions. Subsequently, Jason-2/OSTM will be moved to different 9.9 day orbit to provide additional data coverage.

[ZachS09]

I looked on Salo's U.S. Launch Schedule and apparently, Jason 3 was said to have a launch date on January 4.

My question is: who said that Jason 3 would launch on January 4? I know I didn't say it in the first place; it wasn't my idea.

[Raul]

My question is: who said that Jason 3 would launch on January 4?

Peter B. de Selding: Jason-3 ocean-altimetry sat launch on SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 (last v1.1 as SpaceX moves to Falcon 9 upgrade) no earlier than Jan.4, CNES says.
https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/666942328448425984

[Flying Beaver]

Where is the Falcon 1.1 slated to launch Jason currently located? Is it at SpaceX headquarters still?

[Zaran]

Where is the Falcon 1.1 slated to launch Jason currently located? Is it at SpaceX headquarters still?

Second stage was at Texas for test fires, first stage was kept at VAFB.

[OnWithTheShow]

NOAA tweets launch date set for Jan 17

https://twitter.com/NOAASatellites

"Launch date for Jason-3 announced!  Launch scheduled for Jan 17, 2016 at 10:42:18am PST. http://go.usa.gov/cK4TP"