SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 4)

[joek]

Now, my theory about the building may be all wet: does anybody know if there is a west coast equivalent to AstroTech near Vandenburg?

Yes, Astrotech has facilities at VAFB.  There is also SSI, but I'm not sure about their capabilities.

[padrat]

Regarding the hanger size at SLC-40, didn't SpaceX take possession of one of the Titan processing buildings up the road from SLC-40?  I believe the plan is to store/prepare stages there before moving them to the pad hangar.  Makes sense to not have future stages too close to the pad in case there is an incident.

There's been a few possible existing locations being considered for extra processing room. We are going to need it, if nothing else to store future hardware or get a jump on processing the next flight when there's a rocket ready to fly in the hanger. It will definitely help to get to projected flight rates. Obviously we still have AO, prob for second stages. Also looking at ways to increase our clean room capabilities to enable multiple spacecraft processing. Prob shouldn't get much more in depth about it right now but it's pretty exciting. There's plenty of unused facilities around the Cape looking for new users or facing demolition otherwise....

[Marslauncher]

I am heading up to Mcgregor now and will see if we can catch a Falcon.

John, - Marslauncher

[newpylong]

If you get all of the construction done at once, you don't interrupt your operations flow later on.

Building construction is messy. You don't want that mess around stuff you're trying to keep clean.

What flow? The rocket isn't going to be at Vandenberg for an unknown large quantity of time.

What if the entire facility was designed but only Phase I was implemented initially because that is what they had the resources for?

None of this is rocket science (no pun intended)....

[rcoppola]

Regarding the hanger size at SLC-40, didn't SpaceX take possession of one of the Titan processing buildings up the road from SLC-40?  I believe the plan is to store/prepare stages there before moving them to the pad hangar.  Makes sense to not have future stages too close to the pad in case there is an incident.

There's been a few possible existing locations being considered for extra processing room. We are going to need it, if nothing else to store future hardware or get a jump on processing the next flight when there's a rocket ready to fly in the hanger. It will definitely help to get to projected flight rates. Obviously we still have AO, prob for second stages. Also looking at ways to increase our clean room capabilities to enable multiple spacecraft processing. Prob shouldn't get much more in depth about it right now but it's pretty exciting. There's plenty of unused facilities around the Cape looking for new users or facing demolition otherwise....

Is there any current Cape facilities big enough to perhaps create one central location for both the storage of completed and tested stages as well clean-rooms? You would then move what is needed, when it's needed from one location to either SLC 40 or 39A. 

[padrat]

That are vacant? Not that I'm aware of....

[Jakusb]

Already asked below on L2, but as this might require some speculation and related info now public, a second attempt (slightly edited) in this discussion thread. Anyone with some common sense answer? Or maybe even facts?

So, that last friday test would be S1 of Thaicom?
Do they still intend test at full mission duration? Or do they now suffice with minimum burn (like 30s?). With future reuse in mind, I could imagine they should, at some point, safely trust their consistent production quality and safe some engine lifetime with shorter test.
Just wondering.

[guckyfan]

Already asked below on L2, but as this might require some speculation and related info now public, a second attempt (slightly edited) in this discussion thread. Anyone with some common sense answer? Or maybe even facts?

So, that last friday test would be S1 of Thaicom?
Do they still intend test at full mission duration? Or do they now suffice with minimum burn (like 30s?). With future reuse in mind, I could imagine they should, at some point, safely trust their consistent production quality and safe some engine lifetime with shorter test.
Just wondering.

They did reduce the burn time for the Falcon 9 1.0. So I would assume they will do the same with the 1.1. How far down how fast is anybodys guess.

I had suggested in another thread they may skip the acceptance test entirely and do only the hot fire test on the pad once they have confidence enough after a number of tests.

That idea was not very well received with the argument they want to find any faults earlier than on the pad. However knowing how fast they can replace a single engine I still think they may go that way. It would save a lot in transport and handling cost.

[Jim]

Is there any current Cape facilities big enough to perhaps create one central location for both the storage of completed and tested stages as well clean-rooms? You would then move what is needed, when it's needed from one location to either SLC 40 or 39A. 

There are no clean rooms of that size and any existing ones have been spoken for.  There are also very few facilities that could handle the first stage.  The basic Cape hangar is not long deep enough.  That eliminates many available facilities.   Most of the Titan facilities have been razed or are used by ULA.

[JAC]

Already asked below on L2, but as this might require some speculation and related info now public, a second attempt (slightly edited) in this discussion thread. Anyone with some common sense answer? Or maybe even facts?

So, that last friday test would be S1 of Thaicom?
Do they still intend test at full mission duration? Or do they now suffice with minimum burn (like 30s?). With future reuse in mind, I could imagine they should, at some point, safely trust their consistent production quality and safe some engine lifetime with shorter test.
Just wondering.

Considering that 1 of 10 engines on last launch had problems, it is not yet time to reduce testing.

[JAC]

It would be "interesting" to go back and see how much Apollo and Shuttle might have cost if they didn't have the cost burden of the overbuilt facilities, pads, crawlers, etc, which was about 2X more than was ever needed.

It could have been worse. I think LC-39C and LC-39D were planned but never built.

And to prevent this from being OT: As there seem to be high demand for pads, why not offer LC-39C and LC-39D also for new use? Probably to expensive as they are not developed.

[ugordan]

Considering that 1 of 10 engines on last launch had problems, it is not yet time to reduce testing.

You're woefully oversimplifying things. How does extending burn times on a first stage test help or have anything to do with *restart* problems on a second stage which sees a vastly different environment than a ground-lit first stage?

[meekGee]

Already asked below on L2, but as this might require some speculation and related info now public, a second attempt (slightly edited) in this discussion thread. Anyone with some common sense answer? Or maybe even facts?

So, that last friday test would be S1 of Thaicom?
Do they still intend test at full mission duration? Or do they now suffice with minimum burn (like 30s?). With future reuse in mind, I could imagine they should, at some point, safely trust their consistent production quality and safe some engine lifetime with shorter test.
Just wondering.

Considering that 1 of 10 engines on last launch had problems, it is not yet time to reduce testing.

Agreed on testing *right now*, but you're taking a first launch, and using it as a basis for statistics ("1-out-of-10").  That's not imprecise, it is simply invalid.

This was not a statistical failure from some random sample.  It was a second ignition of the untested M1D-Vac, for which there is a root cause.  It simply does not compute in any statistical sense since you cannot infer from it on any probabilities of failure in future flights.

[JAC]

Considering that 1 of 10 engines on last launch had problems, it is not yet time to reduce testing.

You're woefully oversimplifying things. How does extending burn times on a first stage test help or have anything to do with *restart* problems on a second stage which sees a vastly different environment than a ground-lit first stage?

Has there been a public statement of root cause of the failure?
If the problem was a design error, related only to the vac model, I agree, it has noting to do with first stage.
But if problem is related to tolerances, or process, then it is definitely related.

As SpaceX is now ramping up production they will be encountering process issues only before faced by the Soviets.

Don't take me wrong. I don't say they cannot do this. I'm just saying that one rocket launch is not enough to prove that production is stable.

[docmordrid]

^^ or UNstable. Opinions at this stage only effect the forum SNR.

[meekGee]

Don't take me wrong. I don't say they cannot do this. I'm just saying that one rocket launch is not enough to prove that production is stable.

  ... 'sactly - for the very same reason.  All we know from the first flight are that the design is generally ok and that there are loose ends to sort out.   We don't know if they have a reliable design, and won't know for a while.  And as you said - right now, there's no justification to reduce testing.

[Jakusb]

Don't take me wrong. I don't say they cannot do this. I'm just saying that one rocket launch is not enough to prove that production is stable.

  ... 'sactly - for the very same reason.  All we know from the first flight are that the design is generally ok and that there are loose ends to sort out.   We don't know if they have a reliable design, and won't know for a while.  And as you said - right now, there's no justification to reduce testing.

They have had several more engines tested at McGregor. So not just the 10 engines of 1 flight.
Also I seriously doubt that SpaceX will allow for any anomaly during engine construction, so what reason could there be that would require such long tests. Either the design and process work, or they don't. Maintain quality and consistent production and all results will be predictable. Just don't change anything in the production process.

[friendly3]

I'm sorry if this is stupid, I'm no rocket engineer, but since there will be so many payloads that will be too heavy for a F9 and so many payloads that will be too light for a FH would it be so difficult to create a Falcon Medium with two cores? I know rockets are not legos, but...

[Lars_J]

I'm sorry if this is stupid, I'm no rocket engineer, but since there will be so many payloads that will be too heavy for a F9 and so many payloads that will be too light for a FH would it be so difficult to create a Falcon Medium with two cores? I know rockets are not legos, but...

It probably isn't worth it to have another configuration to support. Such payloads could be launched by a non-crossfeed FH, or an FH with a lofted trajectory where all 3 cores return to the launch site.

The gap can also be closed from the low end by using the F9 in fully expendable mode for extra performance - as is happening on the next two flights.

[LegendCJS]

I'm sorry if this is stupid, I'm no rocket engineer, but since there will be so many payloads that will be too heavy for a F9 and so many payloads that will be too light for a FH would it be so difficult to create a Falcon Medium with two cores? I know rockets are not legos, but...

It probably isn't worth it to have another configuration to support. Such payloads could be launched by a non-crossfeed FH, or an FH with a lofted trajectory where all 3 cores return to the launch site.

The gap can also be closed from the low end by using the F9 in fully expendable mode for extra performance - as is happening on the next two flights.

Indeed, there are no payloads that are too light for any rocket, just wasteful.  SpaceX, however, has the ability to use wasted capacity productively in their efforts to develop /implement reusability.

Edit: The very ability of SpaceX to make productive use of this extra capacity might get lightweight customers a bargain on the launch in the first place.

Edit2: (for friendly3) someone who actually knows rockets are not legos would never shop up the photo you posted.