SpaceX Falcon 9 FT - ORBCOMM-2 - Dec. 21, 2015 (Return To Flight) DISCUSSION

[dhHopkins]

Boy, that would be a great RTF with a nominal payload delivery, and a 3 point barge landing for icing on the cake!

[dhHopkins]

Sorry - actually, a 4 point landing for a Falcon 9 would be preferable.

[Joaosg]

NASA answer to congress inquire about the SpaceX mishap has been posted

http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/congressional_response_spacex.pdf

This is interesting (not directly related to RTF, but related to NASA high-value missions)

Given the continual evolution and uncertified upgrades to the Falcon 9 rocket
configuration to date, as well as the potential courses of action to fix the anomaly
which caused the failure, will any future changes made to the Falcon 9 rocket
require a new certification and licensing? If not, why?
ANSWER: For NASA, our NPD 8610.7 describes the level of changes that would
or could cause the need to accomplish a re-certification of a launch vehicle.
Engineering judgment is required to make such a determination, but the NASA
policy emphasizes major changes in the core propulsion and/or other modifications
that would directly change the way in which the launch vehicle flies as being the
basis for making such a determination. For instance, as a part of our May 12, 2015,
NASA certification letter to SpaceX, we informed them that should they implement
their new version of the Falcon 9, known as the “Full Thrust” version, LSP would
require SpaceX to accomplish a new certification for that vehicle due to the major
changes to the core propulsion system and the launch vehicle structure.

[drzerg]

so nasa will need another 3+ flights of falcon 9 "1.2" for sertification? does that mean that all NASA missions will be launched on 1.1 before sertification?

[nadreck]

so nasa will need another 3+ flights of falcon 9 "1.2" for sertification? does that mean that all NASA missions will be launched on 1.1 before sertification?

No that is not necessarily implied, they don't need to re-certify using the same certification path they first used. However, note that flying CRS missions will not require this certification, only missions that are "NASA high value payloads".

[Chris Bergin]

so nasa will need another 3+ flights of falcon 9 "1.2" for sertification? does that mean that all NASA missions will be launched on 1.1 before sertification?

There's only one v1.1 left. And that's for Jason-3.

[Joaosg]

so nasa will need another 3+ flights of falcon 9 "1.2" for sertification? does that mean that all NASA missions will be launched on 1.1 before sertification?

No that is not necessarily implied, they don't need to re-certify using the same certification path they first used. However, note that flying CRS missions will not require this certification, only missions that are "NASA high value payloads".

Exactly, for now i think this only means that there is no other way to launch Jason-3 (this year) without using the only F9 1.1 that there is left..

And if the modifications made for RTF involve core changes they won't be able to fly Jason-3 before being certified again.

[guckyfan]

So we assume it will need 3 launches of the "full thrust" launch vehicle. To actually certify Falcon9 1.1 after 3 flights did take NASA a very long time. Can we assume this time the process will be faster?

Also I think there was a statement by the Airforce that it will be a delta certification for them, so it should hopefully not take too long. Will SpaceX be able to bid on DOD launches in the meantime? Probably no one can answer that today.

[Joaosg]

So we assume it will need 3 launches of the "full thrust" launch vehicle. To actually certify Falcon9 1.1 after 3 flights did take NASA a very long time. Can we assume this time the process will be faster?

Also I think there was a statement by the Airforce that it will be a delta certification for them, so it should hopefully not take too long. Will SpaceX be able to bid on DOD launches in the meantime? Probably no one can answer that today.

I think this time it can be faster than it was before. My understanding is that before they were certifying the entire vehicle, production, quality control, company, etc.. and now they only need to certify what has changed.
And since they are already working together with NASA and Air Force in the mishap investigation they are already receiving feedback about what/where they can improve/change.

[ZachS09]

"Does that mean I should not be a member?"

No.

And I assert that knowledge (NSF style) will help alleviate the bad dreams!!

Thank you for the advice, Kansan52. 

[woods170]

so nasa will need another 3+ flights of falcon 9 "1.2" for sertification? does that mean that all NASA missions will be launched on 1.1 before sertification?

No that is not necessarily implied, they don't need to re-certify using the same certification path they first used. However, note that flying CRS missions will not require this certification, only missions that are "NASA high value payloads".

Correct. CRS flights are not considered NASA high value payloads. After all, they are mostly "T-shirts, Tang and Toiletpaper" with the odd EMU and IDA thrown in for good measure

[OnWithTheShow]

IDA 2 could be considered high value, no? The entire commercial crew program timeline now depends on it getting to station.

[Lee Jay]

The cost of IDA 2, in the context of flying it or not based on probability of loss, should be replacement cost, not development cost.

[drzerg]

i can not find this resertification thing in http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/congressional_response_spacex.pdf any more.
document has been changed?


here in google you can find old version:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:-_YVlP_QFB4J:www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/congressional_response_spacex.pdf+&cd=2&hl=ru&ct=clnk&gl=ua&lr=lang_ru%7Clang_uk

[Joaosg]

i can not find this resertification thing in http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/congressional_response_spacex.pdf any more.
document has been changed?


here in google you can find old version:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:-_YVlP_QFB4J:www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/congressional_response_spacex.pdf+&cd=2&hl=ru&ct=clnk&gl=ua&lr=lang_ru%7Clang_uk

They have changed the document. Yesterday's document had the questions included and then NASA awnsers, but wasn't hand signed by Bolden, and today's document is hand signed and is a scanner of the original. Interesting... someone posted a non-final letter yesterday.

[iamlucky13]

He may be forced to work under the assumption that more providers will do the same.

He should have been assuming that all along. If they're ISO 9000, they should have a quality policy that covers things like how to determine what parts need what sorts of inspections and how frequently (such as first article, statistical sampling, or 100% inspection).

Suppliers with proven robust internal quality control are often allowed to perform their own inspections. Others you either don't work with or you perform your own inspections of the received parts.

That doesn't always catch all problems, but it does help you approach preventing and responding to problems systematically, even when the originate with outside suppliers.

[woods170]

IDA 2 could be considered high value, no? The entire commercial crew program timeline now depends on it getting to station.

Emphasis mine.
No, it can't be considered as high value.
NASA is the only entity judging the value of their own payloads. What you and I think about the value is of no interest to them.

To NASA the original IDA-1 was not a high value payload. Otherwise they would have stuck it on HTV. But instead they stuck it on the much lower classed Dragon.

NASA has (for now) not re-manifested IDA-2 to HTV. It is still planned to go up on another Dragon. Meaning: still not classed as a high-value payload.

[woods170]

IDA 2 could be considered high value, no? The entire commercial crew program timeline now depends on it getting to station.

Also the cost of the IDA development program needs to be factored in.  Whatever the total $$$ number got you 2 units and spare parts.   So you simply divide by two gets you the finished cost for each, out the door.

Now we should have a new budget item with the loss so you have to take the spare parts and make another whole new unit.  Then you also must make another round of spares.  So we are talking not only your point but it also comes down to a budget call.  No bucks, no Buck Rogers.

See,the most interesting call for a RTF CRS-8 or 9 is in the payload.   Do you go for the schedule, and risk another IDA, or do you go for the Beam (still a costly experiment)?

Minor nit. My sources tell me there won't be made another set of spares.

[Zed_Noir]

IDA 2 could be considered high value, no? The entire commercial crew program timeline now depends on it getting to station.

Also the cost of the IDA development program needs to be factored in.  Whatever the total $$$ number got you 2 units and spare parts.   So you simply divide by two gets you the finished cost for each, out the door.

Now we should have a new budget item with the loss so you have to take the spare parts and make another whole new unit.  Then you also must make another round of spares.  So we are talking not only your point but it also comes down to a budget call.  No bucks, no Buck Rogers.

See,the most interesting call for a RTF CRS-8 or 9 is in the payload.   Do you go for the schedule, and risk another IDA, or do you go for the Beam (still a costly experiment)?

Minor nit. My sources tell me there won't be made another set of spares.

Maybe the folks who lost IDA-1 might produce a new IDA unit, if required. Do they have to licensed the specs from Boeing or is the IDA consider as NASA property?

[Nomadd]

Minor nit. My sources tell me there won't be made another set of spares.

Kind of strange. You'd think they'd want spares for a mechanism as important and open to abuse as that. I'd hate to have a port down for a year while they fabricated parts. Maybe a replacement could be made in short order.