Falcon 9 v1.1 Appears on Fast Track To Qualify for Air Force Missions

[QuantumG]

http://www.spacenews.com/article/military-space/39020falcon-9-v11-appears-on-fast-track-to-qualify-for-air-force-missions?utm_content=buffer5463d&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

"Air Force officials have stressed that certified companies are not guaranteed launch contracts, only the right to compete for business. ULA has indicated that it intends to bid for the contested missions."

[dante2308]

What an odd part to quote. Almost off topic. Anyway:

While Hawthorne, Calif.-based SpaceX has not received formal certification to launch operational national security satellites aboard its Falcon 9 v1.1 rocket, Gen. William Shelton, commander of Air Force Space Command, told SpaceNews Jan. 7 he has not seen anything from the vehicle’s three flights to date to prevent that from happening.

Shelton has said repeatedly he is pleased with ULA’s record, but thinks the price of launching rockets is too expensive. In a speech to students at George Washington University here Jan. 7, he praised Elon Musk, SpaceX’s chief executive.

“I don’t doubt that guy anymore, by the way,” Shelton said. “What he says, he’s going to do.”

Well then, it seems like SpaceX has a new amazing people. I just read a few articles in french about the threat SpaceX poses to Arianespace. I was wondering what sort of way ULA and Arianespace could compete once SpaceX develops a record. It seems like the only way ULA planned to compete was with more advanced dismissive adjectives.

[QuantumG]

What an odd part to quote. Almost off topic.

Just trying to keep some perspective.

[joek]

That is surprising and encouraging news.  If it's only a matter of months from now, that would be way ahead of projections made last June that it could be "as soon as 2015", which I read as "no sooner than 2015".

[AJW]

I have read a number of articles in the French press indicating that especially with the most recent two launches,  Arianespace clearly considers SpaceX a viable competitor.  They are emphasizing their successful track record, while looking for ways to reduce costs..  Some of these changes include cutting down on outsourcing of parts, but the CEO is also busy trying to explain why their prices are so high (currency exchange rates, budget issues, etc.)

[llanitedave]

It didn't take them long to change their tune.

[meekGee]

Just like the quote form SES's CTO, this tells a lot about the change in the industry.

These people have been given a lot more information about SpaceX's plans and non-public status than we do.

This makes me happy. 

[macpacheco]

That is surprising and encouraging news.  If it's only a matter of months from now, that would be way ahead of projections made last June that it could be "as soon as 2015", which I read as "no sooner than 2015".

This prompts an interesting question...

Should SpaceX deliver at least another 6 missions without an engine failure or under performance (in a row), still in 2014, to what extent this could prompt the DoD to reason 9 picture perfect missions in a row versus the number crunching they would do on those 3 missions they want data from. Specially if this happens say by august 2014.

And I'm assuming just 7 missions in 2014, my bet on the poll is 12+.

[BrightLight]

The Spacenews article tells me that ULA will have to evolve quickly and reduce the cost to launch. Right now the ULA track record is impressive and convincing - but SpaceX is starting to get into the "battle rhythm" of launching there manifest, with continued SpaceX success will come those launch vehicle reliability stats so coveted by ULA.

[intrepidpursuit]

“We’ll wait to see what their prices look like,” Shelton said.

Perhaps $56.5 million per launch?

http://www.spacex.com/about/capabilities

I guess he is anticipating a "dealing with government BS" fee to be tacked on. Speaking of which, who pays for the new vertical payload processing facilities? Would SpaceX include facility upgrade costs in their proposal or would they just up the price for vertical integration amortize the additional expenses?

[Garrett]

The Spacenews article tells me that ULA will have to evolve quickly and reduce the cost to launch. Right now the ULA track record is impressive and convincing - but SpaceX is starting to get into the "battle rhythm" of launching there manifest, with continued SpaceX success will come those launch vehicle reliability stats so coveted by ULA.

I think it was Jim (who else ) who said that F9 v1.1 isn't suited for launching the heavy payloads typical of many USAF and NRO satellites. They'll need FH for many of those missions, and FH has yet to fly. The F9 "battle rhythm" will only very partially contribute to the FH launch history, so ULA and Boeing still have quite an advantage.

[BrightLight]

The Spacenews article tells me that ULA will have to evolve quickly and reduce the cost to launch. Right now the ULA track record is impressive and convincing - but SpaceX is starting to get into the "battle rhythm" of launching there manifest, with continued SpaceX success will come those launch vehicle reliability stats so coveted by ULA.

I think it was Jim (who else ) who said that F9 v1.1 isn't suited for launching the heavy payloads typical of many USAF and NRO satellites. They'll need FH for many of those missions, and FH has yet to fly. The F9 "battle rhythm" will only very partially contribute to the FH launch history, so ULA and Boeing still have quite an advantage.

What you say is certainly true for the present "standard payloads" that DoD flies.  With inexpensive launch capability - it should be possible to fly smaller,albeit less capable payloads.  If and when Falcon Heavy flies, it will be a direct competitor to ULA.

[guckyfan]

What you say is certainly true for the present "standard payloads" that DoD flies.  With inexpensive launch capability - it should be possible to fly smaller,albeit less capable payloads.  If and when Falcon Heavy flies, it will be a direct competitor to ULA.

I would not count on the DoD developing new payloads for Falcon 9. The Falcon Heavy is needed. However a good track record of Falcon 9 will help with getting FH certified.

[Lars_J]

The Spacenews article tells me that ULA will have to evolve quickly and reduce the cost to launch. Right now the ULA track record is impressive and convincing - but SpaceX is starting to get into the "battle rhythm" of launching there manifest, with continued SpaceX success will come those launch vehicle reliability stats so coveted by ULA.

I think it was Jim (who else ) who said that F9 v1.1 isn't suited for launching the heavy payloads typical of many USAF and NRO satellites. They'll need FH for many of those missions, and FH has yet to fly.

While that is true for some missions, there have been plenty of DoD flights using the lightest Atlas V & Delta IV variants.

For example, the last mission (NROL-39) used an Atlas V 501 - and F9v1.1 has equal or better performance compared to that Atlas V version.

Payload processing requirements are more of a hurdle than LV performance, I would think.

[edkyle99]

The Spacenews article tells me that ULA will have to evolve quickly and reduce the cost to launch. Right now the ULA track record is impressive and convincing - but SpaceX is starting to get into the "battle rhythm" of launching there manifest, with continued SpaceX success will come those launch vehicle reliability stats so coveted by ULA.

I think it was Jim (who else ) who said that F9 v1.1 isn't suited for launching the heavy payloads typical of many USAF and NRO satellites. They'll need FH for many of those missions, and FH has yet to fly. The F9 "battle rhythm" will only very partially contribute to the FH launch history, so ULA and Boeing still have quite an advantage.

Right.  Falcon 9 v1.1 only touches the bottom of the EELV payload range.  It roughly equates to or slightly beats Atlas 5 401 and Delta 4 Medium in GTO payload.  The latter rocket hasn't flown since 2006. 

In addition, the SpaceX rocket has a lot yet to prove.  So far, it has only lifted a 3.2 tonne payload to a supersync orbit that required one second stage restart.  Atlas 5 401 lifted 3.9 tonnes to GTO on its inaugural launch, has subsequently lifted as much as 4.8 tonnes to GTO, and has also performed long duration, multi-restart Centaur missions for GPS satellites, along with missions to Mars, etc.

 - Ed Kyle 

[rcoppola]

The key word with regards to payloads too heavy for F9v1.1 is "Many" but certainly not all. There are incremental launches to be had leading to relationship and trust building. These are very important things as well. Once SpaceX is allowed to participate in any way, it only opens more doors.

[macpacheco]

One simple question. Can a F9R in max payload profile (non reusable) launch GPS satellites, say with a 20% performance margin (I'm assuming USAF will require a sizeable performance margin just don't know how much) ?

That's a high volume, medium high risk (mass produced) payload, that is scheduled at 3 launches / year. Would be very interesting to see those go to SpaceX after certification.

PS: There's no GPS transfer orbit, the 2nd should deliver the satellite 100Km higher than standard GPS orbit, that's the standard per recent launches.

[mr. mark]

Could SpaceX eventually launch the US Airforce's X37B cutting costs especially with a reusable first stage? Will the X37B fit inside the Falcon 9 fairing?

[Zed_Noir]

The Spacenews article tells me that ULA will have to evolve quickly and reduce the cost to launch. Right now the ULA track record is impressive and convincing - but SpaceX is starting to get into the "battle rhythm" of launching there manifest, with continued SpaceX success will come those launch vehicle reliability stats so coveted by ULA.

I think it was Jim (who else ) who said that F9 v1.1 isn't suited for launching the heavy payloads typical of many USAF and NRO satellites. They'll need FH for many of those missions, and FH has yet to fly. The F9 "battle rhythm" will only very partially contribute to the FH launch history, so ULA and Boeing still have quite an advantage.

But there are all those smaller Delta IV medium+, Atlas V 401/411 and Atlas V 501/511/521 mission that are comparable with the F9 v1.1 for GTO flights. Also the F9 v1.1 could do LEO flights up to about 16500 kg. Most of the future USAF/NRO Atlas V & Delta IV flights falls in the above categories.

Budget constrains might force a switch over for future lighter payloads.

[edkyle99]

One simple question. Can a F9R in max payload profile (non reusable) launch GPS satellites, say with a 20% performance margin (I'm assuming USAF will require a sizeable performance margin just don't know how much) ?

That's a high volume, medium high (mass produced) payload, that is scheduled at 3 launches / year. Would be very interesting to see those go to SpaceX after certification.

PS: There's no GPS transfer orbit, the 2nd should deliver the satellite 100Km higher than standard GPS orbit, that's the standard per recent launches.

Atlas 5 and Delta 4 use three-burn upper stage profiles on ~3.5 hour long missions to directly inject GPS satellites into their 20,200 km circular orbits. 

I'm not sure if Falcon 9 v1.1 can lift the GPS mass to that orbit on paper, and if it can I'm not sure if the second stage is designed to perform three burns during a 3.5 hour long mission.  It isn't out of the question, but it has yet to be demonstrated.

 - Ed Kyle