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

[Lar]

Or even 3 missions....

Hopefully V1.1 will fly more missions than V1.0.

And when the launcher changes again (a production F9R or new upper stage), they need to re-qualify, right ?

How much of a change is a change? If they change the supplier for one small unimportant capacitor in some circuit board that's a lot less change than a major engine redesign.

Small changes happen all the time in the consumer product arena...

[Nate_Trost]

The simplest answer would be that SpaceX already built and tested the 1.0 LV for this mission and it's sitting in storage for the next ~24 months. I believe there was a poster in the 1.1 thread stating this was the case.

[baldusi]

I think russianhalo17 aleges he has an insider and stated that Mc Gregor tested the CRS-2 and Jason 3 v1.0 before doing mods to the test stands for v1.1.

[Lars_J]

I think russianhalo17 aleges he has an insider and stated that Mc Gregor tested the CRS-2 and Jason 3 v1.0 before doing mods to the test stands for v1.1.

It is plausible, but the biggest issue is still seems to be the pad infrastructure changes between v1.0 and v1.1. But perhaps it won't be as different as many of us are expecting.

[baldusi]

I think russianhalo17 aleges he has an insider and stated that Mc Gregor tested the CRS-2 and Jason 3 v1.0 before doing mods to the test stands for v1.1.

It is plausible, but the biggest issue is still seems to be the pad infrastructure changes between v1.0 and v1.1. But perhaps it won't be as different as many of us are expecting.

Everything is pretty abstracted in the strongback. All they need to do is keep the old one and take it to VAFB. I understand that the current one on CC is being modded. So it's quite probable that they've kept the specs and can make it backward compatible for not much trouble.
After all, the mods can't be that expensive.

[mlindner]

I think russianhalo17 aleges he has an insider and stated that Mc Gregor tested the CRS-2 and Jason 3 v1.0 before doing mods to the test stands for v1.1.

It is plausible, but the biggest issue is still seems to be the pad infrastructure changes between v1.0 and v1.1. But perhaps it won't be as different as many of us are expecting.

Everything is pretty abstracted in the strongback. All they need to do is keep the old one and take it to VAFB. I understand that the current one on CC is being modded. So it's quite probable that they've kept the specs and can make it backward compatible for not much trouble.
After all, the mods can't be that expensive.

I somehow think that SpaceX would rather not launch the mission versus maintaining a v1.0 rocket that long. It's going on a v1.1 or its not going on F9 at all.

[joek]

Is available in the sense Antares is - it's on the NLS-II contract, but can't get any missions yet because neither has at least 3 successful missions in a row. 

They need only one successful launch to submit a bid on a task order; 3.2(E) below.  Assuming they haven't already met the certification requirements, they wlso need an approved plan for achieving the required level of certification prior to launch; 3.2(C),(F) below.  Alternatively there's the "3 (minimum 2 consecutive) successful flights" path (per NPD 8610.7D).  Even with all that, no guarantees; 3.2(G) below.

In short, until F9v1.1 has at least one successful flight, SpaceX could have or can bid only F9v1.0.

Also, one of the most recent public NASA Launch Services Manifest (Oct 2012) appears to make a clear distinction between F9v1.0 and F9v1.1, with JASON-3 showing as F9v1.0

3.2   Certification Criteria:

...

(C)   For contract award of IDIQ launch services, the Contractor must provide a detailed, viable plan, subject to Government assessment and acceptance, to achieve all certification requirements prior to launch.  If a certification plan (Attachment D1, Exhibit 7) is submitted, it shall be exempt from disclosure as provided under the FOIA.

(D)   Services under this contract will only include launch vehicles certified to risk mitigation Category 2 and 3 in accordance with NPD 8610.7.  The Contractor shall submit all required documentation for NASA evaluation and determination of certification category.  NASA shall not bear any cost associated with the development of any LSC documentation required for the certification of a common launch vehicle configuration.

(E)   The proposed common launch vehicle configuration shall achieve one successful flight prior to submittal of a proposal for a Launch Service Task Order (LSTO).

(F)   Prior to launch of the NASA payload, the proposed common launch vehicle configuration shall be certified to the required payload risk category.

(G)   NASA reserves the right to require a specific launch vehicle certification category and alternative for selected payloads, regardless of the payload risk classification.  This determination will be made prior to the Launch Services Task Order (LSTO) competition.

[spectre9]

It's a serious allegation that SpaceX has won a contract with a rocket that they don't have in stock.

I'd like to know the truth so this can be settled.

[douglas100]

It's a serious allegation that SpaceX has won a contract with a rocket that they don't have in stock.

I'd like to know the truth so this can be settled.

It would only be serious if SpaceX had deceived NASA about the launch vehicle availability for this mission. Do you have any evidence that they have?

[QuantumG]

It's a serious allegation that SpaceX has won a contract with a rocket that they don't have in stock.

I'd like to know the truth so this can be settled.

It would only be serious if SpaceX had deceived NASA about the launch vehicle availability for this mission. Do you have any evidence that they have?

Let's put it another way: it would be a serious allegation, if anyone was making allegations. No-one is.

[joek]

It's a serious allegation that SpaceX has won a contract with a rocket that they don't have in stock.

My previous response was deleted (?), so I'll try again with a bit more explication and rational.  Hope this makes more sense...

LV's are generally built to order (especially large expensive ones).  There may be lots-o-parts sitting around in various stages of construction in advance, but ultimately building the rocket only after receipt of order is typical.  That SpaceX doesn't have an F9vX.Y to fulfill mission Z in 2015 sitting around "in stock" today shouldn't be a surprise.

So will Jason 3 launch on an F9v1.0 or F9v1.1?  Who knows.  NASA clearly makes a distinction between the two, and all indications are that SpaceX is contractually committed to launching on F9v1.0.  However, that doesn't a-priori preclude a modification that allows Jason 3 to launch on F9.1.1.  I see no indications of "serious allegations", or the basis for such.

[spectre9]

Well if there was no allegation I've obviously misinterpreted the discussion going on here 

Thanks for that thoughtful reply joek.

If Jason 3 is booked for Falcon 9 v1.0 I'm sure SpaceX still has the capability to produce that rocket in time for the launch.

That's what I assumed back when we first heard about this launch contract being awarded.

[mlindner]

SpaceX is not going to reverse modify pads and start up production on an old vehicle and engines just for the sake of one mission. Defeats the entire idea of how they operate. Not sure why people are seriously considering this.

[joek]

SpaceX is not going to reverse modify pads and start up production on an old vehicle and engines just for the sake of one mission. Defeats the entire idea of how they operate. Not sure why people are seriously considering this.

Says who?  Contracts don't care, and by all indications SpaceX is contractually committed.  And why do you think they need to "reverse" anything or that it "defeats the entire idea of how they operate"?

Give SpaceX and NASA some credit.  They've undoubtedly thought about it and I hope and expect they have a plan that satisfies their goals as well as NASA's requirements and contractual commitments.

[beancounter]

There was a release by NASA last year that mentioned adding v1.1 to the original Falcon 9 launch services contract.  Perhaps, in the end, the contract doesn't care which variant is used.

 - Ed Kyle

That's the likely case.  Just so long as it has a launch vehicle, the version doesn't matter.  Anyway, presumably v1.1 will be an improved version.  Why would a customer want a less capable or a version that is not considered to be the best the provider can offer?  That's a bit like asking Apple for an iPhone2 instread of the iPhone5.

[Jim]

NASA has some leverage on Spacex and might use it to their advantage.  Slipping the launch 3 months immediately didn't help either

[mr. mark]

SpaceX is not going to reverse modify pads and start up production on an old vehicle and engines just for the sake of one mission. Defeats the entire idea of how they operate. Not sure why people are seriously considering this.

Of course, You are correct but that never stopped some here from speculating. It's clear to me, amend the contract.

[Lar]

There was a release by NASA last year that mentioned adding v1.1 to the original Falcon 9 launch services contract.  Perhaps, in the end, the contract doesn't care which variant is used.

 - Ed Kyle

That's the likely case.  Just so long as it has a launch vehicle, the version doesn't matter.  Anyway, presumably v1.1 will be an improved version.  Why would a customer want a less capable or a version that is not considered to be the best the provider can offer?  That's a bit like asking Apple for an iPhone2 instread of the iPhone5.

Well, just to play devil's advocate, I prefer Windows XP to Windows 7, for things that matter. XP may be less capable but it's had many  more bugs shaken out.

I highly doubt that NASA will insist on a 1.0. But I could see why they MIGHT... because 1.0 has more flights and is a more understood quantity. I doubt they will. But it's not outside the realm of possibility.

All that said, I think Spectre9 is a bit off the mark in painting this in colours of scandal.

[Danderman]

So all three can be horizontally mated? Thus, no of these payloads imply an MST?

JASON 1 and 2 flew on Delta II, but other spacecraft using this s/c bus have flown on Soyuz.

JASON 3 status updates (publicly available ones at least) imply that they are modifying the spacecraft to facilitate integration. My guess is that they're planning on bolting the spacecraft to the LV in the hanger (i.e. horizontally).

IIRC, this is a Proteus bus, and these things are mated all sorts of ways to different launch vehicles.

[spectre9]

I implied wrongdoing with my wording and I apologise for that.

I'll be careful in future.

There is some minor confusion about which version of Falcon this launch will use but it's not that big a deal it seems.