USAF Certification a possible hindrance to future F9 Development?

[savuporo]

2) alternatively, SpaceX could fork the design as you pointed out, and lock down a version/model of the F9 for the USG military launches, while allowing some innovation on the other model.  ....

I'd just like to point out that this will have very far reaching effects, including factory equipment, ground systems and potentially pads. Can get super expensive.

[Hauerg]

Isn't the AF used to "superexpensive"?
 

[Lar]

The point of having SpaceX compete is to lower costs to the taxpayer. So "superexpensive" isn't good. If SpaceX has to fork that would be bad, IMHO. It's not exactly the same as forking a software project, which is bad enough, it's far worse.

[RocketGoBoom]

Likely the only way someone can duplicate what SpaceX is doing is to essentially start from scratch, which means building a new Falcon 9 class rocket - and everyone else in the world has already locked in their design choices for their current generation of launchers, so until someone decides to build a brand new rocket we are unlikely to see someone else try to duplicate what SpaceX has done.

My $0.02

Excellent point. Real innovation is going to come from new players. I don't expect Ariane, ULA, Orbital Sciences or the Russians to be drivers of innovation on the same level as SpaceX. I have worked in large corporations and I really don't see an established corporate culture ever doing what SpaceX is doing. They are often too conservative to take that type of "bet the company" risk.

It will take another billionaire who is willing to self fund a new company in the early stages for us to see this again.

As to how this all plays into F9 development and USAF certification, I think SpaceX will rise or fall based on their results. If a new improvement in their commercial version of the F9R is working consistently, then after a certain number of launches there needs to be a process where the USAF just accepts it as valid for USG launches also. Not a full blown recertification...

The USAF won't be the first customer to fly a used 1st stage. But I bet it will happen within 5 years of a commercial customer doing it.

[Jcc]

Two points: as I understand it, Atlas V and Delta IV have not been frozen in time since the first EELV launch, they have been incrementally improved, and furthermore there are a number of configurations of each with SRBs, DIVH. Possibly the latest improvements are related to human rating the Atlas V, and installing a common avionics package between the two launchers.

At the same time, I think SpaceX is about ready to keep the F9 design more or less static. They still have some bugs to work out (what's with the He pressurization system?), and according to them, the hardware for reusability is in place, they mainly need to refine the software. So, being locked into to a more gradual upgrade pace for F9, would be the best thing that can happen to them.

[Jim]

On this point, does anyone know if the certification process is designed as a co-operative effort -- maybe like the NASA-SpaceX relationship where (I believe) that SpaceX is gaining from NASA's expertise while the SpaceX systems are being 'vetted' -- or as an adversarial or neutral process?  Co-operative would certainly open possibilities for improved systems and launch flow, while adversarial/neutral would be opportunity lost.

It is neutral like NASA's. 

[savuporo]

Two points: as I understand it, Atlas V and Delta IV have not been frozen in time since the first EELV launch, they have been incrementally improved..

And as has been pointed out multiple times, each and every change undergoes a continuous review by the customer, effectively constituting a "continuous certification" process or delta certification or whatever - incurring overhead.

[Jim]

Wrong.  The government has the monopsopy on the military market.  So it is a state regulated market.  Noone can enter the market unless the comply with the (wise or unwise, good or bad, ...) regulatory process to compete in that market. 

That was my point.

And those regulations will tend to both slow innovation, and increase cost to anyone who wants to sell into that market.

Wrong again.  It is a vendor qualification program and not a regulatory process. 

[Jim]

I am fully aware and in agreement with many of the concerns posted, however, the AF is not a typical USG, civil service bureaucracy. Many of these people have state-of-the-art training and are wickedly smart. We may be very surprised how the introduction of SpaceX into this process will begin to alter both themselves and the AF into an amazing partnership where each learns from the other. It's going to take some time for this to happen.

Wrong, the USAF is young officers who rely on the Aerospace Corp and other contractors for advice.  There is no "state-of-the-art training" when it comes to space systems, OJT is where everything is learned.

[john smith 19]

Wrong, it is not semantics.  Nobody is forcing SX.   SX does not have to be certified and it doesn't have to fly USAF missions.

Insofar as it regulates who is allowed access to a government controlled market (which is AFAIK the biggest one in Spacex's home country) I'd call it a "regulation".

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck....

[Jim]

Wrong, it is not semantics.  Nobody is forcing SX.   SX does not have to be certified and it doesn't have to fly USAF missions.

Insofar as it regulates who is allowed access to a government controlled market (which is AFAIK the biggest one in Spacex's home country) I'd call it a "regulation".

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck....

Looks like vendor qual to me.  No different than any other time the military uses an alternative source.

[john smith 19]

Yes, the process has a tendancy to freeze vehicle configuration if your only market was the government. But SpaceX has other non-government customers that new configurations can fly and be used to then certify them to the governemnt.  Eventually the certification process will be just a paper exercise without meaning as vehicle inovation increases basic reliabilty way beyond that being sought by the AF.

I was wondering at this strategy. Incremental changes on every commercial launch (within reason) then once a bunch of changes have been proved out do a "block upgrade" to the DoD version, all at once.

[savuporo]

I was wondering at this strategy. Incremental changes on every commercial launch (within reason) then once a bunch of changes have been proved out do a "block upgrade" to the DoD version, all at once.

The problem with this approach is, that the entire process above all needs dedicated personnel to spend their working hours on it ( that's obviously where the cost comes from ).
You don't hire a bunch of people to deal with this process, have them work for couple of months and then twiddle their thumbs until there is a next round coming up.

[john smith 19]

Just wanted to point out that CNC has been around for decades (1st generation CNC used paper tape), so advocating that it is "modern" is a misnomer.  Even friction-stir welding (FSW) is no longer "new", just yet another manufacturing technique that is now proven and well understood.

True. In fact IIRC explosive forming was considered for the tank ends of either the Saturn 1c or the Saturn V.

But LV mfg is a very conservative process. I think FSW will be the SoA approach for future LV's.

[R7]

Incremental changes on every commercial launch (within reason) then once a bunch of changes have been proved out do a "block upgrade" to the DoD version, all at once.

Who says the commercial customers (and their insurers) like being paying crash test dummies on every flight? Why wouldn't they opt for certified, stable and proven version too?

[Jim]

I think FSW will be the SoA approach for future LV's.

Already is for US vehicles.  Delta IV first used it. 

[Jim]

Who says the commercial customers (and their insurers) like being paying crash test dummies on every flight? Why wouldn't they opt for certified, stable and proven version too?

They paid for insurance.

[Jcc]

Two points: as I understand it, Atlas V and Delta IV have not been frozen in time since the first EELV launch, they have been incrementally improved..

And as has been pointed out multiple times, each and every change undergoes a continuous review by the customer, effectively constituting a "continuous certification" process or delta certification or whatever - incurring overhead.

Sure, it incurs overhead, but probably the cost for SpaceX to do it is less than for some other companies. At least, that is what we are led to believe. Besides, having a thorough review of the systems for certification will probably enhance their reliability. I am sure that NASA reviews helped them a great deal to build a launcher with zero primary mission failures after losing 3 out of 4 F1s.

[Jim]

I am sure that NASA reviews helped them a great deal to build a launcher with zero primary mission failures after losing 3 out of 4 F1s.

Not really.   NASA doesn't tell them how to design or fix their vehicles.  NASA just needs to know how the vehicle works.

[Jcc]

I am sure that NASA reviews helped them a great deal to build a launcher with zero primary mission failures after losing 3 out of 4 F1s.

Not really.   NASA doesn't tell them how to design or fix their vehicles.  NASA just needs to know how the vehicle works.

Yes, but in the process of describing how it works, with the level of detail that NASA required of them, it would have helped them think through the details better. I think I remember Gwynn Shotwell saying something to that effect.