SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 - CASSIOPE - September, 2013 - GENERAL DISCUSSION THREAD

[ChrisWilson68]

Good morning, SLC-4E (from a person on twitter)

Great to get my long weekend wish to see the Falcon 9 V1.1! I'm staying positive knowing that this is a test launch and hoping for the best. As padrat said on another thread a lot is riding on this launch. Let's hope that things stay "nominal".

I bet the customer doesn't think it's a 'test' launch!

The customer knows far better than any of us do exactly what this launch is.  They know all the publicly-available information we know, plus details that aren't public.

The speculation is that they are paying far below the usual Falcon 9 rate for this flight.

[Robotbeat]

Presumably, they're paying around $10 million or whatever SpaceX used to charge for Falcon 1 launches.

[AJW]

Given the choice between sending a payload in a Falcon 1 with a 60% failure rate, or the successor to the V1.0 which had a 100% primary mission success rate, I would choose the latter.

[ugordan]

Given the choice between sending a payload in a Falcon 1 with a 60% failure rate, or the successor to the V1.0 which had a 100% primary mission success rate, I would choose the latter.

You underestimate how different v1.1 is to v1.0. Success of v1.0 doesn't have that much bearing on it, just as the initial failures of Falcon 1 don't have much of a bearing on the expected reliability once the wrinkles have been ironed out on the vehicle.

Then again, Cassiope would have needed Falcon 1e, also an unflown vehicle - but a less complex one than F9.

[Jcc]

Given the choice between sending a payload in a Falcon 1 with a 60% failure rate, or the successor to the V1.0 which had a 100% primary mission success rate, I would choose the latter.

You underestimate how different v1.1 is to v1.0. Success of v1.0 doesn't have that much bearing on it, just as the initial failures of Falcon 1 don't have much of a bearing on the expected reliability once the wrinkles have been ironed out on the vehicle.

Then again, Cassiope would have needed Falcon 1e, also an unflown vehicle - but a less complex one than F9.

F9v1.1 still has engine out capability, lacking that the v1.0 would have had an 80% primary mission success rate instead of 100%.

The rest of the potential advantages are harder to quantify, unless you have intimate knowledge of the design choices and test procedures of both versions. Presumably, NASA has that knowledge, I don't know how much Spacex shares with other customers.

[Garrett]

Given the choice between sending a payload in a Falcon 1 with a 60% failure rate, or the successor to the V1.0 which had a 100% primary mission success rate, I would choose the latter.

You underestimate how different v1.1 is to v1.0. Success of v1.0 doesn't have that much bearing on it, just as the initial failures of Falcon 1 don't have much of a bearing on the expected reliability once the wrinkles have been ironed out on the vehicle.
Then again, Cassiope would have needed Falcon 1e, also an unflown vehicle - but a less complex one than F9.

F9v1.1 still has engine out capability, lacking that the v1.0 would have had an 80% primary mission success rate instead of 100%.

Your logic is only valid if you assume the engine-out that was experienced during F9, flight 4, were to have a similar probability of occuring on a rocket without engine-out capability.
It is next to impossible to validate such an assumption.

[Jcc]

Given the choice between sending a payload in a Falcon 1 with a 60% failure rate, or the successor to the V1.0 which had a 100% primary mission success rate, I would choose the latter.

You underestimate how different v1.1 is to v1.0. Success of v1.0 doesn't have that much bearing on it, just as the initial failures of Falcon 1 don't have much of a bearing on the expected reliability once the wrinkles have been ironed out on the vehicle.
Then again, Cassiope would have needed Falcon 1e, also an unflown vehicle - but a less complex one than F9.

F9v1.1 still has engine out capability, lacking that the v1.0 would have had an 80% primary mission success rate instead of 100%.

Your logic is only valid if you assume the engine-out that was experienced during F9, flight 4, were to have a similar probability of occuring on a rocket without engine-out capability.
It is next to impossible to validate such an assumption.

If you compare it with a completely different vehicle that has a smaller number of engines it may be difficult, but I would challenge your statement that it is next to impossible to validate, because risks are calculated for every launch by insurance companies and apparently by the FAA, so clearly there are methods that are used.

The question at hand is if an F9 with engine out capability is more robust than an F9 without that cability, where losing any one of 9 engines would result in loss of mission. That would clearly be worse, unless the engines are many times more reliable than the average.

[SolSystem]

They are paying less than $10 million. The launch deal was signed in mid-2005.

[Norm38]

If 9/14 is looking solid, then the WDR must be basically done. Wouldn't the hot fire have to be this week to give enough time for data review before the launch?  We should hear something on that soon.

[mlindner]

If 9/14 is looking solid, then the WDR must be basically done. Wouldn't the hot fire have to be this week to give enough time for data review before the launch?  We should hear something on that soon.

Yes, hot fire is already scheduled, see L2.

[intrepidpursuit]

Is this new information? They show the CASSIOPE launch as being September 10th according to a NASA mission database. I must assume the MacGregor test is one of the future missions, perhaps Thaicom 6?

http://www.wacotrib.com/blogs/joe_science/spacex-to-conduct-test-as-early-as-wednesday/article_de4ea69c-14eb-11e3-a2af-001a4bcf887a.html

[mr. mark]

Is this new information? They show the CASSIOPE launch as being September 10th according to a NASA mission database. I must assume the MacGregor test is one of the future missions, perhaps Thaicom 6?

http://www.wacotrib.com/blogs/joe_science/spacex-to-conduct-test-as-early-as-wednesday/article_de4ea69c-14eb-11e3-a2af-001a4bcf887a.html

This is the wrong place to report McGregor news....see the McGregor thread. As reported there is a strong possibility of Sept. 14th launch with a hotfire this week. If it's on L2, I'd take it to the bank.

[PreferToLurk]

As reported there is a strong possibility of Sept. 14th launch with a hotfire this week. If it's on L2, I'd take it to the bank.

While you are absolutely correct in pointing out that the 10th NET date is no longer accurate, I would only bank on that being the plan and not on a Sept 14th launch.  Still only a NET date and a lot of things could crop up during the hotfire that might need some analysis before moving on.

A launch anytime in September will be a win for SpaceX. IMO

If they go from hotfire to launch without another slip of at least a few days I would be surprised -- happy, but very surprised.

[king1999]

Elon's new tweet.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/375156462542000128/photo/1

The first official picture of F9R on the transporter/erector(?).

[mr. mark]

To answer a question from a previous photo the gripper arms are now clearly visible.

[mr. mark]

Elon's new tweet.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/375156462542000128/photo/1

The first official picture of F9R on the transporter/erector(?).

What is the molded opening at the bottom of the top of the first stage. A cold gas thruster?

[Silmfeanor]

Elon's new tweet.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/375156462542000128/photo/1

The first official picture of F9R on the transporter/erector(?).

What is the molded opening at the bottom of the top of the first stage. A cold gas thruster?

Too big for a thruster, and you would expect more of them placed evenly around the stage.
Not an umbilical - those are at bottom for stage 1.

So, downward looking camera?

[king1999]

Elon's new tweet.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/375156462542000128/photo/1

The first official picture of F9R on the transporter/erector(?).

What is the molded opening at the bottom of the top of the first stage. A cold gas thruster?

Too big and unsymmetrical for a thruster, and you would expect more of them. Not an umbilical - those are at bottom for stage 1.

So, downward looking camera?

Camera makes sense. They certainly need it to do a video of the first stage elegantly reaching the sea surface.

[mlindner]

Elon's new tweet.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/375156462542000128/photo/1

The first official picture of F9R on the transporter/erector(?).

What is the molded opening at the bottom of the top of the first stage. A cold gas thruster?

Too big and unsymmetrical for a thruster, and you would expect more of them. Not an umbilical - those are at bottom for stage 1.

So, downward looking camera?

Camera makes sense. They certainly need it to do a video of the first stage elegantly reaching the sea surface.

Way too large for a camera...

[ugordan]

Highly likely it's a GOX vent. There's also one at the top of the RP-1 tank, presumably a He pressurization vent.