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

[Lobo]

“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?

I believe SpaceX would pay for it.  Although they would charge enough to recoup that investment, obviously. 

And vertical integration doesn't necessarily have to be that expensive.  I believe they could do it readily at either LC-40 or SLC-4 by integrating the payload into the PLF in a cleanroom facility (probably an addition to the HIV at either site to accomodate that), and then roll it out to the pad and use a crane and some sort of mobile gantry or bucket lift to place the encapsulated payload on top fo F9 on the pad, and attach it.  Some sort of permanent gantry would probably be in the cards at some point if they start getting a lot of USAF contracts, but they could start with that, which would be pretty cheap. 
There's probably other clever and relatively inexpensive ways to do it too.

The integration wouldn't be done until the WDR and static fire were all done, and it was ready for launch.  The encapsulated payload is placed on top with a clean air system to keep it positively pressurized to make sure nothing gets into the PLF while it's being craned up and attached. 

[Robotbeat]

For polar missions, Falcon 9 is quite competitive with all but the heaviest EELV variants. The lack of high-energy upper stage does make F9-to-GTO only competitive with the lower Atlas V variants (does a little better against the slight lower performance-per-core Delta IV), but most past EELV missions are with those variants, anyway. And it should be fairly good for GPS constellation maintenance (correct me).

SpaceX can compete for a good portion of ULA's manifest. Not all of it, but it would make ULA's life significantly more difficult if SpaceX can stay significantly cheaper than ULA (which I think they can) while maintaining competitive reliability statistics. I hope this allows ULA to appeal to lift some of the anti-trust restrictions, hopefully also severing them from strong Boeing and LM control to compete freely. ULA has a lot of potential, if they weren't hampered by those things.

[rcoppola]

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

I prefer to think about it as them having much to "Do" not much to "Prove" As the good General said, he doesn't doubt that Elon (SpaceX) will do what they say. I think they have already proven themselves. And once certified and they grab a few of those launches, I suspect they will accelerate their competitive launch capabilities much faster and more flexibly then any one else. Let the games begin.

[Lobo]

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

Which is probably why FH is hot and heavy in development, and SpaceX is hot to get a west coast pad that can launch it like LC-39A, or with modifications to LC-40.  It'll probably be the primary LV for SpaceX's bids for USAF contracts, for the reasons you mention.  And I think that FH with two reusable boosters, and an expendable core an upper stage, will land right in the sweetspot for most USAF launches.  Pretty much for the material costs of a fully expendabel F9 v1.1, you can launch those heavier paylaods to the BLEO orbits.  Bring the two boosters back to the launch site (which will be pretty easy, as they'll separate pretty early in ascent).  Crossfeed should actually get those boosters separated sooner, and give the central core basically a full propellant load at separation.  That would make recovery even that much easier for those boosters.

A fully expendable FH and or crossfeed would then be available for the USAF payloads that would otherwise fly on D4H.  Even fully expendable, it would likely be far cheaper than D4H's current prices are.  So SpaceX doesn't necessarily need bargin basement prices for those payloads.  Their fully expendable prices should still be very attractive.

I think F9R will be more for commercial payloads in that Delta II, Soyuz-2, and less-than-Atlas V-401 range.  F9v1.1 will be in the Atlas 401/501 and Delta 4-medium range.  And various configurations of FH will be for payloads over that. 
F9 has really good LEO payload capability compared to the Delta's and Atlas's, but I think most of the business is for BLEO, not LEO.  CRS and CCiCAP are LEO mission that F9R and F9 v1.1 will be very good at.

[Joffan]

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

It might be that the snapshot of Earth taken from the Thaicom misson upper stage (photo#5, Thaicom 6 mission overview) was intended to demonstrate at least the duration part of that equation. That was clearly a good while after the injection burn, and the upper stage was still sufficiently powered and coordinated to take and transmit the picture.

[rcoppola]

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

It might be that the snapshot of Earth taken from the Thaicom misson upper stage (photo#5, Thaicom 6 mission overview) was intended to demonstrate at least the duration part of that equation. That was clearly a good while after the injection burn, and the upper stage was still sufficiently powered and coordinated to take and transmit the picture.

Great image. SpaceX is wonderfully aggressive from a messaging standpoint about certification. They never, ever, fail to mention "Certification" with regards to discussing these last 3 flights. Just in case anyone forgets..."That's the first of 3...that's the second and there's the third..." etc..etc.. Every press release, every article, every mission update always includes a mention of certification. So who do you think the audience is for that constant rejoinder? Rhetorical question...

[Lars_J]

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

It might be that the snapshot of Earth taken from the Thaicom misson upper stage (photo#5, Thaicom 6 mission overview) was intended to demonstrate at least the duration part of that equation. That was clearly a good while after the injection burn, and the upper stage was still sufficiently powered and coordinated to take and transmit the picture.

Indeed. The F9 upper stage has now shown multi-hour lifetime on two missions, and the M1DVac is presumably capable of more than one restart. (The center M1D on CASSIOPE restarted twice, so one would imagine M1DVac can do the same - and more)

[meekGee]

I prefer to think about it as them having much to "Do" not much to "Prove" As the good General said, he doesn't doubt that Elon (SpaceX) will do what they say. I think they have already proven themselves. And once certified and they grab a few of those launches, I suspect they will accelerate their competitive launch capabilities much faster and more flexibly then any one else. Let the games begin.

That right there is the point.  There's no argument as to what F9 can do compared to what DIV or AV can do.  The significance is in the attitude of the customer.

Contrast that with various "It hadn't happened yet so it doesn't exist" statements, as articulated especially by competitors.

What it means is that there basically a desire to take advantage of what SpaceX is promising to do, and a trust in them - much as the thread title suggests.

Which payload is launched by which payload is really irrelevant since it's not happening tomorrow anyway.  This matters mostly to the 2016 and onwards time-frame.

[edkyle99]

Indeed. The F9 upper stage has now shown multi-hour lifetime on two missions, and the M1DVac is presumably capable of more than one restart. (The center M1D on CASSIOPE restarted twice, so one would imagine M1DVac can do the same - and more)

Do you know for sure about the "multi-hour" claim?  That was a wide angle lens which makes distant objects look dramatically smaller than they really are.  It might only have been one hour.  The stage might have been tumbling by then too, but still have charge in batteries.  Maybe some optics wizard could estimate the altitude for us.

I would not be surprised if SpaceX attempted a third Merlin 1D Vacuum restart as a post-payload separation test at some point, but I haven't seen anything that suggests something like that has been attempted so far. 

 - Ed Kyle

[rpapo]

Do you know for sure about the "multi-hour" claim?  That was a wide angle lens which makes distant objects look dramatically smaller than they really are.  It might only have been one hour.  The stage might have been tumbling by then too, but still have charge in batteries.  Maybe some optics wizard could estimate the altitude for us.

I would not be surprised if SpaceX attempted a third Merlin 1D Vacuum restart as a post-payload separation test at some point, but I haven't seen anything that suggests something like that has been attempted so far. 

 - Ed Kyle

More to the point, given what happened with CASSIOPE and the corrections for it: Though the stage apparently still has electrical power and perhaps attitude control, are those igniter lines frozen yet?  Additional insulation only slows the rate of heat loss.  It doesn't prevent it entirely.  For that, they would need some sort of heater to keep the lines ready.

I am not anti-SpaceX in any way.  I am simply a realist.

[meekGee]

Do you know for sure about the "multi-hour" claim?  That was a wide angle lens which makes distant objects look dramatically smaller than they really are.  It might only have been one hour.  The stage might have been tumbling by then too, but still have charge in batteries.  Maybe some optics wizard could estimate the altitude for us.

I would not be surprised if SpaceX attempted a third Merlin 1D Vacuum restart as a post-payload separation test at some point, but I haven't seen anything that suggests something like that has been attempted so far. 

 - Ed Kyle

More to the point, given what happened with CASSIOPE and the corrections for it: Though the stage apparently still has electrical power and perhaps attitude control, are those igniter lines frozen yet?  Additional insulation only slows the rate of heat loss.  It doesn't prevent it entirely.  For that, they would need some sort of heater to keep the lines ready.

I am not anti-SpaceX in any way.  I am simply a realist.

It could have been the case where there was a heater, but insulation wasn't sufficient under certain circumstances.

Shotwell did say something about "A condition they saw before and thought they got away from" - so perhaps they added the heater, calculated that it can overcome heat loss, then found out that under certain sun angles it can't, and so added some insulation.

Or maybe not.  Just sayin' the picture can be more complicated.

[rpapo]

Just sayin' the picture can be more complicated.

Yes, the devil's in the details...

[GalacticIntruder]

US GPS is only 3600kg and needs a MEO/ICO  orbit. Why can't a F9 do that?

[Lars_J]

Indeed. The F9 upper stage has now shown multi-hour lifetime on two missions, and the M1DVac is presumably capable of more than one restart. (The center M1D on CASSIOPE restarted twice, so one would imagine M1DVac can do the same - and more)

Do you know for sure about the "multi-hour" claim?  That was a wide angle lens which makes distant objects look dramatically smaller than they really are.  It might only have been one hour.  The stage might have been tumbling by then too, but still have charge in batteries.  Maybe some optics wizard could estimate the altitude for us.

I would not be surprised if SpaceX attempted a third Merlin 1D Vacuum restart as a post-payload separation test at some point, but I haven't seen anything that suggests something like that has been attempted so far. 

 - Ed Kyle

Indeed, I suspect that those capabilities will be demonstrated this year. They know what they need to do, and have all the pieces for accomplishing them.

[rcoppola]

Indeed. The F9 upper stage has now shown multi-hour lifetime on two missions, and the M1DVac is presumably capable of more than one restart. (The center M1D on CASSIOPE restarted twice, so one would imagine M1DVac can do the same - and more)

Do you know for sure about the "multi-hour" claim?  That was a wide angle lens which makes distant objects look dramatically smaller than they really are.  It might only have been one hour.  The stage might have been tumbling by then too, but still have charge in batteries.  Maybe some optics wizard could estimate the altitude for us.

I would not be surprised if SpaceX attempted a third Merlin 1D Vacuum restart as a post-payload separation test at some point, but I haven't seen anything that suggests something like that has been attempted so far. 

 - Ed Kyle

Indeed, I suspect that those capabilities will be demonstrated this year. They know what they need to do, and have all the pieces for accomplishing them.

And that is the important point. We've all seen and heard Gwynne and Elon. Just think about any conversation with the Air Force or any customer needing to add a capability for future missions. "You want/need what? Sure, we can do that, when do you need it and can we possible do it this way, because we think this may work better and will save you some time and money."

This is not just about metal, wires and fuel. This is about having the kind of attitude that customers want. Now couple that with  the fact that they are proving they can do what they say...and see what happens to their manifest.

I don't know but I suspect there are those in the AF just chomping at the bit to start this relationship in earnest.

[edkyle99]

US GPS is only 3600kg and needs a MEO/ICO  orbit. Why can't a F9 do that?

The current generation of GPS satellites only weigh up to 1.63 tonnes and are inserted directly, or nearly so, into their 20,2000 km x 55 deg circular orbits by Atlas 5-401 and Delta 4M+4,2 rockets.  The next generation will apparently be heavier - beyond Falcon 9 v1.1 capability - and will require Atlas 5-411 or Delta 4M+4,2 rockets - rockets that can lift a tonne or more additional payload to GTO than Falcon 9 v1.1.

 - Ed Kyle

[pogo661]

Should ULA leverage the income they already have locked in for the next 5 years to make very competitive bids on the remaining launches up for grabs, with the hope that they'll actually be able reduce their costs over the 5 year period and come out ahead,  while slowing spacex's growth down?

Can spacex afford to bid below their costs for these flights?

[mb199]

Should ULA leverage the income they already have locked in for the next 5 years to make very competitive bids on the remaining launches up for grabs, with the hope that they'll actually be able reduce their costs over the 5 year period and come out ahead,  while slowing spacex's growth down?

Can spacex afford to bid below their costs for these flights?

Why would Spacex launch without making money? I could understand for the first few launches but not now. Spacex goal is to get to Mars, they are going to need to make money to achieve there goals. they did not start this to launch satillites.

[Nomadd]

US GPS is only 3600kg and needs a MEO/ICO  orbit. Why can't a F9 do that?

The current generation of GPS satellites only weigh up to 1.63 tonnes and are inserted directly, or nearly so, into their 20,2000 km x 55 deg circular orbits by Atlas 5-401 and Delta 4M+4,2 rockets.  The next generation will apparently be heavier - beyond Falcon 9 v1.1 capability - and will require Atlas 5-411 or Delta 4M+4,2 rockets - rockets that can lift a tonne or more additional payload to GTO than Falcon 9 v1.1.

 - Ed Kyle

I need to show my ignorance here. How does a GTO insertion compare to a 55 degree, 20,000 km circular orbit as far as launcher capability?

[rcoppola]

Should ULA leverage the income they already have locked in for the next 5 years to make very competitive bids on the remaining launches up for grabs, with the hope that they'll actually be able reduce their costs over the 5 year period and come out ahead,  while slowing spacex's growth down?

Can spacex afford to bid below their costs for these flights?

They won't be able to slow the growth of SpaceX.

For example and many more to come on top of the 50 they already have: http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/01/spacex-win-contract-jcsat-14-falcon-9/