Author Topic: SpaceX customers' views on reuse  (Read 73326 times)

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12847
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 3604
  • Likes Given: 616
Re: SpaceX customers' views on reuse
« Reply #380 on: 12/02/2017 03:13 PM »
http://spacenews.com/glavkosmos-denies-launch-vehicle-caused-cubesat-failures/

So not a launch vehicle failure based on currently-available information.

 - Ed Kyle

From your own link: "one of Spire’s Lemur satellites was injected into the wrong orbit."

By your own definition - a failed launch. No?
It depends on the circumstances.  We need details on the specific cubesat deployment mechanism, who "owned" the deployer, who commanded it, whether it was actually the problem, is it part of the launch vehicle or part of the payload.  On which side did the problem occur?  It sounds like the satellite in question did deploy, but not at the correct time.  There isn't enough information to date, but an investigation report has been promised, it seems.  It does seem that the upper stage went to the orbits that it was supposed to reach.

 - Ed Kyle 

Offline oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3186
  • Florida
  • Liked: 1568
  • Likes Given: 137
Re: SpaceX customers' views on reuse
« Reply #381 on: 12/02/2017 03:38 PM »
OT.

How does this relate to customers's views on reuse?

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4396
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 2980
  • Likes Given: 984
Re: SpaceX customers' views on reuse
« Reply #382 on: 12/07/2017 12:04 PM »
I've tidied up the summary list on the first post and now added known future booster reuse flights.

As always please let me know if I've missed any confirmed reuses.

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4396
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 2980
  • Likes Given: 984
Re: SpaceX customers' views on reuse
« Reply #383 on: 12/11/2017 03:36 PM »
Interesting, NASA and SpaceX started talking about re-use in January and nearly didn't complete in time for CRS-13:

Working with NASA [on re-use] since Jan.  Equivalent risk established.  All groups meeting for several months.

2 weeks before launch was when the decision had to be made.

NASA went off on their own to come up with what they wanted to see for Falcon 9 reuse.  NASA put on constraints.  Only single reflight agreed to. Only a CRS-like mission is where that booster could come from.  Decision was made so finely.   Re-flgiht Readiness Review (RFRR).

NASA was so late making decision because RFRR came in so only allow official decision.

New booster could have effected the launch date.

The first public mention by NASA of potential reuse logged in this thread was in April.
« Last Edit: 12/11/2017 03:41 PM by FutureSpaceTourist »

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4396
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 2980
  • Likes Given: 984
Re: SpaceX customers' views on reuse
« Reply #384 on: 12/11/2017 10:27 PM »
Transcript of the Pre-Launch presser:

https://gist.github.com/theinternetftw/23433626cb5ff08b0c6ad87ae33e9aeb

Expanding on the previous post, quite a bit more detail in the CRS-13 press conference (iíve edited out non-reuse Qs and As):

Quote
Marcia Dunn: Marcia Dunn, Associated Press. For Kirk, if I might. Do you expect your anxiety level to be slightly higher tomorrow, given that this is a reused rocket that you'll be reusing for the first time at NASA?

Kirk Shireman: Every time we launch a rocket, I'm anxious. It's still a dangerous business, so I will be anxious tomorrow. I can tell you a number of things. First off, reusability. The shuttle was reused, we reused the boosters, we reused the main engines. And so the notion of reusability is not new. We did an extensive review, and by we I mean the entire agency. We engaged rocket experts from around the agency, to define, first off, what NASA would like to see in terms of data, and analysis, and testing, and even inspection in between the flights. And then we met with SpaceX and reviewed what they did. And we're very comfortable that the risk posture is not significantly greater than a new booster. The way we look at it, we've retired some risks, some risks are actually less on a re-flown booster, and some risks are actually a little greater, and the net result is about equivalent risk. So we think of it as equivalent risk. Which is not to say zero risk. So we'll be anxious, but I wouldn't say a higher level of anxiety for this reflown booster than a new booster.

James Dean: James Dean, Florida Today. For Kirk Shireman. [...] And regarding reuse, do you also see this as important to the future of spaceflight, reducing costs, the things Jessica mentioned earlier? Or are you really just doing it because SpaceX wants to and you verified that their data looks good?

Kirk Shireman: [...] As for reuse, I think there's no question that reusability, especially reusability without a tremendous amount of hardware replacement, can change the economics of launch, and the reality is that the business of space is dominated by launch costs. Certainly in the human space flight world it's dominated by launch costs. So getting the costs down is important for everyone. It's important for NASA. It's important for the future of human spaceflight. It's important for commerce in space, and so it's certainly a positive thing. So we're very much supportive of this activity. What we need to be careful about is, from a NASA perspective, that we understand the risk. So we get to decide the risk level that we will accept, and we are doing that. SpaceX has been very cooperative with us in answering all of our questions and sharing data with us. We've even had people participate in some of the testing. So I think the effort going on between NASA and SpaceX is excellent with respect to reuse, and we certainly see that as an avenue for reduced costs in the future.

Chris Gebhardt: Chris Gebhardt with NasaSpaceFlight. I'm wondering, for Kirk and maybe Jessica, if you could talk a little bit more about the decision for the flight-proven booster? When was that decision made? It was only confirmed last week, so I'm wondering, was there a contingency plan to use a new core if NASA had decided to not to use the re-flown booster?

Jessica Jensen: So I guess I can start with that one. So we've been working with NASA since January of this year on the process for insuring that a flight-proven booster is of equivalent risk to a new booster. And so like Kirk mentioned, we've been having technical meetings with NASA for each different group. So for example, dynamics on the vehicle, propulsion, avionics, each of those different groups have been meeting with their NASA counterparts for several months. So we've been working at this for many, many months. And as we get closer to the launch date, the way it works, as you know we can have turnaround times of roughly two weeks. So about two weeks before launch is the absolute, drop dead of when a decision needs to be made to not impact the launch date.

Kirk Shireman: I wanted to add to that, if I could. [...]. But in terms of reusability, absolutely, we have. What I described earlier, NASA went off on their own and said hey, if we were going to fly a Falcon 9, reuse a Falcon 9, what would we like to see in terms of analysis, testing, inspection between the flights and so on. And so we did that. We laid it out ourselves, independently. We then met with SpaceX and went through their data and their certification package. We put on some constraints, by the way, I didn't mention earlier. We agreed to a single re-flight, and at this point we've agreed to a single re-flight of a booster that's flown to a benign mission, like ours. Like a CRS-1 flight. So we only agreed to a single re-flight, and a Low Earth Orbit mission for the first launch. The reason the decision was made so finely is, like we said, there's the general certification. And then there's the actual inspection of the booster. And then finally there's a review conducted by SpaceX, a Re-flight Readiness Review. Think of it as a Flight Readiness Review for that particular booster. And so NASA was part of the generic certification. NASA reviewed the inspection plan in between the flights. And we were waiting for that Re-flight Readiness Review to be complete, to go over all the issues, and make sure at that point we were still comfortable with the risk level for this flight. And that's why the actual official decision. The letter, we sent a contract letter to SpaceX here, I think a week and a half ago, two Wednesdays ago, if I'm not mistaken, I can look that up if you need it, but very, very recently. At some point in time, we knew that there would be a change. We told SpaceX that we were heading down this path, but we weren't ready to commit until that final Re-flight Readiness Review was conducted, and that we understood that if we changed position, if we changed paths and used a new booster, it might affect the launch date. SpaceX understood, and we were partnering all along. And so we were waiting for that final decision, that final Re-flight Readiness Review, and then NASA decided and sent the letter.
« Last Edit: 12/11/2017 10:31 PM by FutureSpaceTourist »

Tags: