USAF Certification a possible hindrance to future F9 Development?

[arachnitect]

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.

Non government customers aren't required to take the lowest bid.

If someone who has never been up a ladder gave you a great price on a new roof you'd tell them to take a hike.

To avoid the same problem the government has to have written down somewhere "prospective contractors must provide proof of previous satisfactory roofing experience, defined as the following... (etc etc)."

You can argue about the specifics of vendor qual (in this case LV certification) but there's a reason it exists and it's not going away. It's more stringent in fields like launch services because no one is going to put up a performance bond for a $2B rocket and payload.

[Vultur]

So what major changes does F9v1.1 need, now that it has legs? I suppose making the second stage reusable, if ever. They would probably need to recertify for that. They certainly will not convert to methane engines, change the core diameter or any other disruptive change. No point in it.

Second stage, yes... but that may be several changes as they try to make it work.

[john smith 19]

Non government customers aren't required to take the lowest bid.

True, but they probably will if the supplier has a reasonable track record.

If someone who has never been up a ladder gave you a great price on a new roof you'd tell them to take a hike.

To avoid the same problem the government has to have written down somewhere "prospective contractors must provide proof of previous satisfactory roofing experience, defined as the following... (etc etc)."

Except that's not all that "vendor qualification" is for the USG, is it? Going with your roofing contractor analogy you wouldn't just visit previous customers. You'd check who they bought their materials from, who trained them, who their staff were trained by etc.

You can argue about the specifics of vendor qual (in this case LV certification) but there's a reason it exists and it's not going away. It's more stringent in fields like launch services because no one is going to put up a performance bond for a $2B rocket and payload.

And yet there is a launch vehicle insurance market. It's just the USG chooses not to use it. Ariane 5 has delivered as good a track record at much less cost without any of its major customers (except CNES payloads) having any deep insight into how it was designed or built.

What fascinates me is that F9 has passed NASA's human rating. Given the exceptionally high value placed on human life in the US I find if astonishing that is still not enough. 

[Llian Rhydderch]

And yet there is a launch vehicle insurance market. It's just the USG chooses not to use it. Ariane 5 has delivered as good a track record at much less cost without any of its major customers (except CNES payloads) having any deep insight into how it was designed or built.

What fascinates me is that F9 has passed NASA's human rating. Given the exceptionally high value placed on human life in the US I find if astonishing that is still not enough. 

Cost is definitely increased by these regulatory certification requirements, while innovation of new ways of doing things will be slowed by the ongoing/continued need to certify with USAF each innovation/change in the design of the launch vehicle.

Indeed, that is an odd outcome...; until you think about the political economic implications of the thing.  It works very well for a goodly number of the individuals who are the economic decision makers in these matters.  For them the incentives can be quite reversed from the incentives for the taxpaying public. 

The higher cost is not a bug, it is a feature for the execs at any government contractor doing business-as-usual through standard USG procurement practices; and it is a feature to the companies hired to do the multi-million dollar certification exercise; and as we've discussed many times on these fora, it is a feature to various political actors who endavors to bring jobs and companies to their districts states and then use that as part of their claim as to why they ought to be reelected.  And although the engineers working at the the BAU contractors may not benefit as much, and indeed by harmed by the relatively slower pace of technology innovation, the higher costs processes may also be seen as a boon to the large number of personnel who are involved to provide many of the data/paperwork to support the extensive certification project. 

So not nearly as astonishing when you look at the various roles played by folks involved in the process, and the costs and benefits to them rather than merely looking at the program as a whole.

[Jim]

What fascinates me is that F9 has passed NASA's human rating.

Incorrect.  NASA has not performed such a certification.  That is only a SX claim

[Jim]

The higher cost is not a bug, it is a feature for the execs at any government contractor doing business-as-usual through standard USG procurement practices; and it is a feature to the companies hired to do the multi-million dollar certification exercise; and as we've discussed many times on these fora, it is a feature to various political actors who endavors to bring jobs and companies to their districts states and then use that as part of their claim as to why they ought to be reelected. 

Nonsense, there is no local politics involved with LV cert.

[Jim]

Cost is definitely increased by these regulatory certification requirements, while innovation of new ways of doing things will be slowed by the ongoing/continued need to certify with USAF each innovation/change in the design of the launch vehicle.

Indeed, that is an odd outcome...; until you think about the political economic implications of the thing.  It works very well for a goodly number of the individuals who are the economic decision makers in these matters.  For them the incentives can be quite reversed from the incentives for the taxpaying public. 

The higher cost is not a bug, it is a feature for the execs at any government contractor doing business-as-usual through standard USG procurement practices; and it is a feature to the companies hired to do the multi-million dollar certification exercise; and as we've discussed many times on these fora, it is a feature to various political actors who endavors to bring jobs and companies to their districts states and then use that as part of their claim as to why they ought to be reelected.  And although the engineers working at the the BAU contractors may not benefit as much, and indeed by harmed by the relatively slower pace of technology innovation, the higher costs processes may also be seen as a boon to the large number of personnel who are involved to provide many of the data/paperwork to support the extensive certification project. 

So not nearly as astonishing when you look at the various roles played by folks involved in the process, and the costs and benefits to them rather than merely looking at the program as a whole.

Completely unsubstantiated.  You have no insight to make such claims.  100% opinion and no facts

[Jim]

Ariane 5 has delivered as good a track record at much less cost without any of its major customers (except CNES payloads) having any deep insight into how it was designed or built.

Not true.  Ariane is subsidized and so the "less costs' is unquantified.

[kirghizstan]

What fascinates me is that F9 has passed NASA's human rating.

Incorrect.  NASA has not performed such a certification.  That is only a SX claim

Has SpaceX claimed that?  I do not remember them saying they passed NASA's human rating.

[Jim]

Has SpaceX claimed that?  I do not remember them saying they passed NASA's human rating.

The claim is that they designed to the NASA standards

[neoforce]

Has SpaceX claimed that?  I do not remember them saying they passed NASA's human rating.

The claim is that they designed to the NASA standards

kirghizstan and Jim are both correct.  I don't think spacex has ever said they "passed" NASA's human rating, but they talk all the time that they are designing to do so.  Many examples of that, some posted here:

From http://www.spacex.com/falcon9:

Falcon 9, along with the Dragon spacecraft, was designed from the outset to deliver humans into space and under an agreement with NASA, SpaceX is actively working toward that goal.

from http://www.spacex.com/falcon-heavy

Falcon Heavy was designed from the outset to carry humans into space and restores the possibility of flying missions with crew to the Moon or Mars.

from http://shitelonsays.com/transcript/singapore-satellite-industry-forum-2013-opening-keynote-gwynne-shotwell-2013-06-23:

We do wanna turn the Dragon capsule into a crew rated capsule.

from http://shitelonsays.com/transcript/spacex-next-falcon-heavy-press-conference-2011-04-05

the Falcon Heavy is also designed to meet the NASA human rating standards.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

Basicly the fact that there are no proposed F9 changes for it to meet the CC requirements means that its design was to Human flight or better safety standards.  But these standards are saftey not mission assurance.

Note is that Atlas V does not meet these safety requiremnts and the avionics had to be upgraded including new additional engine monitoring, engine controlers, and software to meet the saftey requirements.  The F9 already had the monitoring, redundant engine controlers (single failure operate dual failure safe), and software to implement the engine out capability.  All of which is needed for a human flight.  Only some possible software additions for performing abort notifications or additional engine status info to the spacecraft.

[savuporo]

Basicly the fact that there are no proposed F9 changes for it to meet the CC requirements means that its design was to Human flight or better safety standards.  But these standards are saftey not mission assurance.

I think one small point of confusion is that there is some sort of linear measurement of launch vehicle "safety standards" here, where one goal post is "human rated".

I am quite certain that USAF certification is worrying about multiple things that NASA or human flights will never consider, and i will toss a completely fringe scenarios like resistance to EMP attacks, nuclear power sources or technology proliferation in case of crashes etc.

Quite simply, "if its good enough for humans, its good enough for multibillion dollar secret military project" does not necessarily always hold true, and design margins have very little to do with it.

[baldusi]

I remember an ULA official explaining that a crew mission required different trajectory and anomaly handling than a defense mission. In the later case, the software has to try to reach orbit while not endangering anybody. In the crewed case, it has to assure the safety of the crew (while not endangering the surface dwellers).

[Llian Rhydderch]

Cost is definitely increased by these regulatory certification requirements, while innovation of new ways of doing things will be slowed by the ongoing/continued need to certify with USAF each innovation/change in the design of the launch vehicle.

Indeed, that is an odd outcome...; until you think about the political economic implications of the thing.  It works very well for a goodly number of the individuals who are the economic decision makers in these matters.  For them the incentives can be quite reversed from the incentives for the taxpaying public. 

The higher cost is not a bug, it is a feature for the execs at any government contractor doing business-as-usual through standard USG procurement practices; and it is a feature to the companies hired to do the multi-million dollar certification exercise; and as we've discussed many times on these fora, it is a feature to various political actors who endavors to bring jobs and companies to their districts states and then use that as part of their claim as to why they ought to be reelected.  And although the engineers working at the the BAU contractors may not benefit as much, and indeed by harmed by the relatively slower pace of technology innovation, the higher costs processes may also be seen as a boon to the large number of personnel who are involved to provide many of the data/paperwork to support the extensive certification project. 

So not nearly as astonishing when you look at the various roles played by folks involved in the process, and the costs and benefits to them rather than merely looking at the program as a whole.

Completely unsubstantiated.  You have no insight to make such claims.  100% opinion and no facts

It's rather standard political economy, and evaluated extensively in Public Choice Theory. 

But I don't think there's any changing your views.   

So let's just stay pleasant, and agree to disagree.

[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.

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.

Correct. You don't question a potential customer's certification process. You put up or shut up.

[QuantumG]

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.

Correct. You don't question a potential customer's certification process. You put up or shut up.

Ya do when your competitor's cronies are setting the certification process to be an endless activity.

[Darkseraph]

3) a downside risk could be letting full documentation of the  F9 v1.1 recipe out of Hawthorne -- no patents is SpaceX policy to avoid this -- but we can hope the certification process isn't 'leaky.'

I have never bought that "Space X has a secret sauce that goes into it vehicles that the Chinese will steal" line. My completely paranoid hunch is that they don't file patents because they're infringing against other US aerospace companies and don't want to get the sued, or made pay royalties.

[savuporo]

My completely paranoid hunch is that they don't file patents because they're infringing against other US aerospace companies and don't want to get the sued, or made pay royalties.

That is tinfoil hat zone, as there are two different government organizations reviewing a lot of what they are doing, with employees that would be somewhat aware of critical IP that other companies are holding. Its not like in propulsion there are gazillion different other innovators around to copy from - there is pretty much only AJR left.

[Darkseraph]

My completely paranoid hunch is that they don't file patents because they're infringing against other US aerospace companies and don't want to get the sued, or made pay royalties.

That is tinfoil hat zone, as there are two different government organizations reviewing a lot of what they are doing, with employees that would be somewhat aware of critical IP that other companies are holding. Its not like in propulsion there are gazillion different other innovators around to copy from - there is pretty much only AJR left.

Yes its completely off the wall suspicion. But I find the idea that they have a secret sauce in their craft equally off the wall. Smartphone manufacturers all produce in China and are not afraid to apply for patents in case of the unscrupulous Chineze!!! Space X is great at PR though, there's nothing they wouldn't spin to look good. On their brochures, they claimed that the Falcon 1 having only one main engine was good for reliability and that the Falcon 9 having 9 engines was good for reliability (engine out)!