USAF Certification a possible hindrance to future F9 Development?

[Wigles]

As a bonus. If the FH core and boosters remain largely similar to the certified FH 1st stage, it makes FH certification much easier.

The boosters aren't

They arent 100% the same but subsystems would be very similar, eg the engines are the same, the octoweb engine assembly would be 99% the same (except for crossfeed) the construction and testing and QA processes are the same, the internal piping would be largely similar.

Major differences would be the length, load paths, vibration & fatigue assessments, etc. still a body of work to do but less than starting from scratch.

which I would say excludes the term " largely similar ".  That is why NASA and USAF treat the vehicle as a separate one for cert purposes.

"Largely" was a deliberately loose term. As I said in the OP, I am not familiar with space launcher certification, but I am familiar with USAF and USN military aircraft certification and in that case we leverage off previous certifications as much as possible. If an element of the certification can be demonstrated through "recognition of prior acceptance" then that is the most efficient way to move forward because you dont need to do a first principles assessment and can usually avoid further testing. Only a CRE (Configuration, Role & Environment) assessment is required to determine if the original assessment remains valid.

Seperate vehicles can still have interelated certifications. As an example each new variant of the 737 is a supplimentary type certificate on top of the basic 737 certification, even the 2012 180 seat 737 Max is an STC to the original 80 seat 737 Type Certificate.

For military derivatives of commercial aircraft, we don't re-certify the parts of the aircraft which are not affected by the modification.

Certificaiton of the F9 seems to require 3x flights in a "stable" configuration + 100 people over more than 12 months worth of assessment. I bet FH will only require a single flight and much less time to certify.

[Jim]

I bet FH will only require a single flight and much less time to certify.

It will require 3

[Jim]

Certification is not just of the hardware but of the integration processes.
Also, there are changes to the vehicle going on all the time.

Jim;
A)Based upon your experience with aircraft, would USAF approval of launch vehicle specific EELV Engineering Change Requests and Engineering Change Orders (ECR/ECO) slow development, or does it have a QA benefit in adding a means of identifying systemic negative potentials for proposed changes?
B) Does the USAF external design review and approval process highlight areas for possible improvement in dependent systems?

My experience isn't with aircraft but with launch vehicles and I have been involved with cert before.    A baseline vehicle is established and certified and the changes are individually looked at.   I will look at trigger thresholds.

Here is it.  Any component or subsystem that undergoes a change in qualification status or is a first flight item or first use.

[Prober]

Certification is not just of the hardware but of the integration processes.
Also, there are changes to the vehicle going on all the time.

Changes in suppliers
Going from standard aerospace suppliers to SpaceX internal manufacture

[Jim]

Changes in suppliers
Going from standard aerospace suppliers to SpaceX internal manufacture

That isn't applicable, since Spacex has been doing that from Day 1 for the whole vehicle, hence there is no change in vendor.

[newpylong]

If they want to be certified they can stop complaining about how the process is long winded, expensive, and unnecessary and either let it occur or not go after the launches, simple.

[AncientU]

If they want to be certified they can stop complaining about how the process is long winded, expensive, and unnecessary and either let it occur or not go after the launches, simple.

Right.  No one should ever question a review process that costs more than the rocket being examined... especially if it has been long-established and proven.  No one should be so bold as to 'suggest' that this process is less-than-perfect.

[john smith 19]

Seperate vehicles can still have interelated certifications. As an example each new variant of the 737 is a supplimentary type certificate on top of the basic 737 certification, even the 2012 180 seat 737 Max is an STC to the original 80 seat 737 Type Certificate.

I find that pretty amazing given the hoops Spacex are being made to jump through. 

For military derivatives of commercial aircraft, we don't re-certify the parts of the aircraft which are not affected by the modification.

Certificaiton of the F9 seems to require 3x flights in a "stable" configuration + 100 people over more than 12 months worth of assessment. I bet FH will only require a single flight and much less time to certify.

I bet FH will only require a single flight and much less time to certify.

It will require 3

This is very intriguing. The deep way aircraft and LV certification differ and any intuition you may have with aircraft simply does not apply for USAF LV rules.   

I still find it pretty amazing also that an Atlas V can have 0-5 SRB's strapped around it (and 1 or 2 RL 10's on the Centaur) but only one configuration needs to be analyzed because "The USAF were deeply involved in the design and funding."

It also seems the USAF don't recognize the idea of "grandfathering" provisions (for LV's) where an existing section's performance is taken as read. This is somewhat ironic given an Atlas V is just like an Atlas III except for the tank construction materials and tank design, and the engine. IOW it's a totally different vehicle with a similar name yet somehow is expected to have the same reliability from day 1. 

I agree FH booster stages will be different from F9 booster stages but I suspect (unlike Boeing) Spacex will make all F9 booster, FH core and FH booster stages as nearly identical as possible, with most changes localized to the top end of the stage so they only "customize" the stage to F9, FH core or FH booster at the last possible moment.

Wheather that buys them an easier certification process only time will tell. 

[Will]

If they want to be certified they can stop complaining about how the process is long winded, expensive, and unnecessary and either let it occur or not go after the launches, simple.

Right.  No one should ever question a review process that costs more than the rocket being examined... especially if it has been long-established and proven.  No one should be so bold as to 'suggest' that this process is less-than-perfect.

The price of the rocket is much less relevant than the cost of the intended payloads. And four flights of the current Falcon version is not actually a lot if you want to fly very valuable payloads.

[Jim]

I find that pretty amazing given the hoops Spacex are being made to jump through. 

What hoops?  Most of the work is on the USAF side

[Jim]

I agree FH booster stages will be different from F9 booster stages but I suspect (unlike Boeing) Spacex will make all F9 booster, FH core and FH booster stages as nearly identical as possible, with most changes localized to the top end of the stage so they only "customize" the stage to F9, FH core or FH booster at the last possible moment.

Can't if all the TSM's or equivalents are one side of the erector, the side boosters will be mirror images

[Jim]

I still find it pretty amazing also that an Atlas V can have 0-5 SRB's strapped around it (and 1 or 2 RL 10's on the Centaur) but only one configuration needs to be analyzed because "The USAF were deeply involved in the design and funding."

The USAF was involved in the launch vehicle system development.  There was it said that they focused on one configuration?

Anyways, read NASA's
 Launch Services Risk Mitigation Policy for NASA-Owned and/or NASA-Sponsored Payloads/Missions - NPD 8610.7D

This is what NASA's take is on vehicle configurations.

 "A "common launch vehicle configuration" is a unique combination of core propulsive stages, excluding strap-on rocket motors and stages utilized explicitly for orbit escape or trim"

[Jim]

It also seems the USAF don't recognize the idea of "grandfathering" provisions (for LV's) where an existing section's performance is taken as read. This is somewhat ironic given an Atlas V is just like an Atlas III except for the tank construction materials and tank design, and the engine. IOW it's a totally different vehicle with a similar name yet somehow is expected to have the same reliability from day 1. 

The USAF never bought an Atlas III. 

[Jim]

People don't understand.  It is not just the vehicle that is being certified but the organization and its processes.

[john smith 19]

People don't understand.  It is not just the vehicle that is being certified but the organization and its processes.

So it's like a USAF specific version of ISO 9001 but for LV mfg and launch services provision?

Which Spacex is certified to already.

[OnWithTheShow]

The USAF was involved in the launch vehicle system development.  There was it said that they focused on one configuration?

You said it yourself in the "Elon wants to self certify" thread....

not required, the USAF paid for and participated in the development of the Atlas V and Delta IV, hence no need for certification.   

When it comes to certification, only the common core matters.  The number of strap on SRM's, third stages or PLF sizes does not play into it.

So only two variants of Atlas V were needed to be certified by NASA, the 4XX and 5XX series.  This is due to the encapsulation of the Centaur by the 5m fairing which induces different load paths.

[Jim]

You said it yourself in the "Elon wants to self certify" thread....

I said that what NASA did.

[Joffan]

People don't understand.  It is not just the vehicle that is being certified but the organization and its processes.

...which is reasonable enough. So presumably when the Falcon Heavy goes for certification, the process will be easier and quicker because SpaceX is already (at that point) a certified organization. How much might that affect the effort/cost of certification?

[john smith 19]

And again, stop with the nonsense, it is not regulatory.  It is a vendor qualification process.  SX can launch all the rockets it wants without going through this process

The supply of LV's and launch services to the USG for NSS missions is a highly regulated market (by the customer in this case) and any entry to this market requires supplier "certification."

IOW "Vendor qualification" is both a "vendor qualification" and a regulatory hurdle, because no customer outside the USG requires it. They just look at the price and the track record.

You seem to have trouble accepting this.

[Lar]

"You're wrong"
"no YOU are wrong"
"no you"

BORING, peeps. Lots of posts got circular filed just now, and not even by me.