SpaceX: Falcon 1 OPERATIONAL

[edkyle98]

>"So, does anyone agree that this system is operational? "<<br /><br />It can't be operational if SpaceX is still making, and has yet to flight test, design changes to fix the problems that caused the most recent launch failure. Since design changes are still being made, Falcon 1 is still in development. It will not be operational until development is complete, which won't occur until all of the design is validated in flight. This could occur during the next flight, but only if the next flight is flawless all the way through to payload separation.<br /><br /> - Ed Kyle

 

[spacester]

By that logic, the vehicle will always be under development and never operational.<br /><br />After all, like any modern manufacturing organization, they will be looking to make continuous improvements. The first priority after a successful flight will be to insure they don't get complacent. Development is ongoing.<br /><br />Development and Operations are very much NOT mutually exclusive.<br /><br />Someone here had a sig line that went something like . . .<br /><br />"For every successful project, there comes a time to shoot the designers . . ." <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[gunsandrockets]

"It can't be operational if SpaceX is still making, and has yet to flight test, design changes to fix the problems that caused the most recent launch failure. Since design changes are still being made, Falcon 1 is still in development. It will not be operational until development is complete, which won't occur until all of the design is validated in flight."<br /><br />Heh. By that definition the Falcon 1 is therefore at the same operational status and level of development as the Space Shuttle!

 

[edkyle98]

>"By that logic, the vehicle will always be under development and never operational. After all, like any modern manufacturing organization, they will be looking to make continuous improvements."<<br /><br />A fairly clear distinction exists between the development and operational phases of such a program. As it does for just about any product (Boeing 777, Honda Civic, Maytag dishwasher, Purina Dog Chow, etc.) support engineering will continue, but once the basic design is proven/certified, Falcon 1 will enter operational service. <br /><br /> - Ed Kyle

 

[edkyle98]

>"By that definition the Falcon 1 is therefore at the same operational status and level of development as the Space Shuttle!"<<br /><br />The Shuttle's development phase encompassed its first four flights - all of which achieved orbit and returned safely. Falcon 1 hasn't made one orbit yet, or even half an orbit.<br /><br /> - Ed Kyle

 

[gunsandrockets]

"The Shuttle's development phase encompassed its first four flights - all of which achieved orbit and returned safely. Falcon 1 hasn't made one orbit yet, or even half an orbit."<br /><br />Which is NOT the same thing as what I replied to. I won't bother explaining further or following up.

 

[jimfromnsf]

good!

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The Shuttle's development phase encompassed its first four flights - all of which achieved orbit and returned safely. Falcon 1 hasn't made one orbit yet, or even half an orbit. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />This isn't necessarily significant. As long as SpaceX can convince its customers that its' ready to go into the operational phase, then it is. People are treating the word "operational" as if it is equivalent to "flawless" or even "reliable". It isn't. For some products, it means going into full-rate production. For Google, it means going into beta. <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /> For commercial launch services, it just means firing off rockets for a paying customer. From what I've read, it sounds as if SpaceX is indeed going operational with its next flight.<br /><br />Shuttle isn't quite comparable, since it's not a commercial platform. There, the customer is usually internal (NASA itself) so the line between "development" and "operational" is less simple. It's similar, though. After those first four flights, they started making more complicated missions because they were less worried about collecting data on the vehicle itself. That echoes what Elon Musk said in his press release about Falcon 1, actually. He deemed the last flight a success because they were able to collect sufficient data -- which was, after all, the point of the flight.<br /><br />Just as the Cassini mission isn't just about pretty pictures, a rocket test flight isn't just about making a particular orbit. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[spacester]

<font color="yellow">A fairly clear distinction exists between the development and operational phases of such a program.</font><br /><br />So you're saying that you have a better handle on when that transition occurs than Elon Musk, his team, and DARPA?<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /><br /><br />I've done product development as a Mechanical Engineer; from concept to prototype design through to 'sustaining' engineering. FWIW. Big projects do not have a single release, there is no clear distinction. Ever seen a Gantt chart?<br /><br />Mr. Musk says it's operational. I believe him. Are you deliberately impugning his character? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

DARPA is not involved in determining whether Spacex is operational. <br /><br />Many other people would have a better handle on the "transition" to operational.<br /><br />It is cut and dry<br /><br />As far as NASA is concerned, the Falcon I nor the Delta-IV Heavy are not "operational". Neither would be allowed to fly a NASA payload on the next mission. NASA requires at least one successful flight before they can use a launch vehicle. <br /><br />Musk could have said he was operational on the first flight,. Words don't make a vehicle operational. Demonstrated capabilities do. Falcon 1 has yet to demonstrate a orbital flight with successful spacecraft separation.

 

[CalliArcale]

I tend to see the word "operational" as a relative term. It's relative to who's using it.<br /><br />From Elon Musk's perspective, if he can convince someone to pay him to fly, it's operational.<br /><br />NASA is not satisfied with that and wants to see it go to orbit first. Since they would be his customer, that's their perogative. (Personally, I tend to side with NASA on that. I wouldn't want to be the first rider either. That's the beauty of hiring a commercial launch vehicle; you don't have to take that risk if you don't want to, assuming you aren't in a huge rush.) <br /><br />EDIT: I can see Elon Musk's perspective too, though. He needs to recoup the financial investment as soon as possible, so getting a paying customer is a priority. It won't matter whether it's totally functional if he can't get funding. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[spacester]

The term 'operational' in this context is relative to pre-established criteria. This is a well-defined milestone. <br /><br />Any word in any language can be said to be a relative term according to who's using it, but that's called "playing semantics".<br /><br />It seems to me that the best person to define Elon Musk's perspective is Elon Musk.<br /><br />So I'm going by what HE says. Silly me, I guess.<br /><br />Let me explain a bit more.<br /><br />One of the main reasons I get upset with the moon hoax idiots is that they are calling my heroes liars. The Apollo astronauts risked their lives for the advancement of space flight and civilization. Then these idiots try to tell me they are all liars. It is infuriating.<br /><br />Now, we have private individuals risking their fortunes for the advancement of space flight and civilization. Then some people try to tell me they are all lying. It is not yet infuriating, but it's getting there.<br /><br />Calli, with all due respect, you clearly have not been following Mr. Musk the last several years. Either that or you are calling him a liar. Your description of his financial model and strategy is in significant variance with his public statements from day one. He is not looking for funding, why does everybody keep saying that? He IS the funding. He'll do an IPO when things are running smoothly, he is not currently seeking investors, according to everything I've read.<br /><br />Elon is Mr. Forthright but the cynics insist on assigning false motives and dishonest statements to him. Is it so hard to conceive that he might be an honest fellow?<br /><br />The vehicle is operational based on pre-set criteria established early on by SpaceX and their customers, one of which is DARPA/Air Force <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

DARPA and the Air Force have not made statements declaring it operational. <br /><br />Musk is looking for funding and he found it in COTS.

 

[spacester]

It's not their bird! Musk has made a statement relaying what his customer has told him, which was to confirm that the pre-existing criteria for operational status have been met.<br /><br />COTS is COTS, there is no doubt a firewall between COTS funding and Falcon development. <br /><br />He wasn't looking for funding but COTS is completely consistent with his overall business objective (take us into space, eventually to Mars). It is a fantastic business opportunity and he would be a fool to turn his back on it.<br /><br />Aerospace people and Entrepreneurs seem to live in different worlds sometimes. He's bridging the gap. It's a brave new world and some preconceived notions will prove to be outmoded.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Big projects do not have a single release, there is no clear distinction. Ever seen a Gantt chart?</font>/i><br /><br />I don't think it would be the case for SpaceX because it is such a small team, but in some projects there are transitions in which you let some people/teams go (return them to the pool so they can be hired for other projects) and then bring on new members/teams to support the next phase.<br /><br />Besides "marketing-speak" of declaring Falcon 1 operational, I wonder if it is also a signal that SpaceX is diverting some major teams off Falcon 1 and onto Falcon 9. Sort of like releasing the development team from the Falcon 1 project, and then the Falcon 9 project can picking up that team. (Once again, the analogy breaks down a little with such a small company.)</i>

 

[edkyle98]

>>"A fairly clear distinction exists between the development and operational phases of such a program."<<<br /><br /> />"So you're saying that you have a better handle on when that transition occurs than Elon Musk, his team, and DARPA?"<<br /><br />Huh? Someone asked if *I* thought Falcon 1 should be considered operational, not if I thought Elon Musk should consider it operational. <br /><br />My answer was based on how this definition has been used in the past. I don't think that Falcon 1 would be considered "operational" by any historical space launch vehicle development standard. Mr. Musk can use whatever definition he wants, but the label he applies is not worth anything until and unless the hardware proves itself, which has yet to occur. <br /><br /> - Ed Kyle

 

[edkyle98]

>"Now, we have private individuals risking their fortunes for the advancement of space flight and civilization. Then some people try to tell me they are all lying. It is not yet infuriating, but it's getting there. "<<br /><br />It doesn't seem a bit dishonest to you that Elon Musk has called both of his failures "successes"? <br /><br /> - Ed Kyle

 

[spacester]

<font color="yellow">Huh? Someone asked if *I* thought Falcon 1 should be considered operational, not if I thought Elon Musk should consider it operational. </font><br /><br />That's not what I'm reading.<br /><br />The question you answered was<br /><br /> />"So, does anyone agree that this system is operational? "<<br /><br />What I am pointing out is that the guy who paid for the rocket, the guy who is putting his own money on the line, the guy who is the one talking to his customers about their expectations, the guy who has been as forthright and honest as he possibly can be, that guy's definition of 'operational' maybe should count for something. Instead, you want to define the term yourself.<br /><br />So you want to play semantics, fine I guess. We can play that game all day long. When you say:<br /><br /><font color="yellow">It can't be operational if SpaceX is still making, and has yet to flight test, design changes to fix the problems that caused the most recent launch failure. Since design changes are still being made, Falcon 1 is still in development. It will not be operational until development is complete, which won't occur until all of the design is validated in flight. This could occur during the next flight, but only if the next flight is flawless all the way through to payload separation.</font><br /><br />I reply that the modifications are operational adjustments, not fundamental design changes. They are going to weld a couple baffles into a tank. No change in tooling, no change in dimensions, no change in material selection, no change in instrumentation, no change in GN&C, etc etc ad nauseum.<br /><br />It's a design adjustment, not a design change.<br /><br />Adjusting the spoiler on a racecar does not constitute a design change. It's an adjustment to the vehicle to achieve higher performance. Falcon I performed. Merlin performed. Kestrel performed. Avionics performed. The payload separated. But the vehicle needs an adjustment.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[spacester]

<font color="yellow">It doesn't seem a bit dishonest to you that Elon Musk has called both of his failures "successes"? </font><br /><br />Two things. <br /><br />First, your question implies that you think he is lying. He deserves better and you brand yourself as an inveterate cynic. So don't be surprised at being challenged on your accusation. I do not know why you insist on showing such blatant disrespect for the man, but he's not here to defend himself from your attack, so I'm doing it on his behalf.<br /><br />Secondly, NO!<br /><br />They were TEST FLIGHTS.<br /><br />The objective of the TEST FLIGHTS was to gather data and retire risk, i.e. prove sub-systems flight-worthy. They achieved their objectives.<br /><br />An OPERATIONAL FLIGHT tests the systems of systems, IOW they can only be called successes if they deliver their payloads to the designated orbits. Mr. Musk has stated in no uncertain terms that OPERATIONAL FLIGHTS are different than TEST FLIGHTS.<br /><br />Have you read the latest statement from the man? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

"I reply that the modifications are operational adjustments, not fundamental design changes. They are going to weld a couple baffles into a tank. No change in tooling, no change in dimensions, no change in material selection, no change in instrumentation, no change in GN&C, etc etc ad nauseum.<br /><br />It's a design adjustment, not a design change.<br /><br />Adjusting the spoiler on a racecar does not constitute a design change. It's an adjustment to the vehicle to achieve higher performance. Falcon I performed. Merlin performed. Kestrel performed. Avionics performed. The payload separated. But the vehicle needs an adjustment. "<br /><br />It is a design change.<br /><br />Adding the baffles is not like "adjusting" a spoiler, it is adding a spoiler.<br /><br />The avionics didn't perform i.e. software needs to be fixed.

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The term 'operational' in this context is relative to pre-established criteria. This is a well-defined milestone.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Correct. I'm just pointing out that SpaceX has particular criteria which differ from NASA's criteria, and that it's silly for people to castigate SpaceX for that.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Calli, with all due respect, you clearly have not been following Mr. Musk the last several years. Either that or you are calling him a liar.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />*raises eyebrow* I'm actually defending what he said in his press release about the recent Falcon 1 flight, and you think I'm calling him a liar? Goodness, I must be doing a very poor job of expressing myself if you've misunderstood me that badly. Do you think I'm attacking him or something?<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>He is not looking for funding, why does everybody keep saying that? He IS the funding.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Not if he wants to keep flying; he has considerable capital to invest in a project like this, but it's not infinite and he has other projects to fund as well. He's not a fool; he knows this. His intention is to have this system to utlimately be financially self-sustaining, like any good commercial enterprise. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[docm]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p><font color="orange">Adjusting the spoiler on a racecar does not constitute a design change. It's an adjustment to the vehicle to achieve higher performance. Falcon I performed. Merlin performed. Kestrel performed. Avionics performed. The payload separated. But the vehicle needs an adjustment. "</font>p><hr /></p></blockquote><br /><font color="yellow">It is a design change. </font>p><hr /><br />From whatever perspective this is a distinction with little difference. Yes it's a mod, but in the really real world not one that rises to the level of a redesign. Thats overstating its degree. <br /><br />They're welding in some <b><i>non-structural</i></b> perforated metal. Whoopteeedeeedaaaa <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /><br /><br />IF it were structural then I'd agree to it being a redesign. I'm certainly not redesigning my boat when I screw on some trim tabs. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[spacester]

Calli, I do not think you are attacking Mr. Musk. I think that you don't understand what is really going on. I am trying to prevent the spread of dis-information. After all, when Calli speaks, people listen.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">He needs to recoup the financial investment as soon as possible</font><br /><br />That is conjecture on your part which is inconsistent with Mr. Musk's statements. Not just the latest statements, but the history of statements. Perhaps you will grant that some of us - those who predicted his emergence - have followed him more closely than you have?<br /><br /><font color="yellow">. . . so getting a paying customer is a priority. </font><br /><br />He's got customers. Have you seen the launch manifest? He's got no shortage of paying customers, it's called supply and demand and he's lowered the price point. He's got GREAT customers who see the value he offers and so have been working with him as he transitions from tests to operations. Why do you think he places a high priority on getting something he already has? He will very shortly have a considerable *backlog* of customers.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">It won't matter whether it's totally functional if he can't get funding.</font><br /><br />More conjecture which is inconsistent with his statements.<br /><br />If you continue to attribute motives to him which are contrary to his actual statements, then what is that called if not 'calling him a liar'? Note that the alternative I suggested is that you have clearly not been following him as closely as others have.<br /><br />I said: he IS the funding; you replied:<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Not if he wants to keep flying; he has considerable capital to invest in a project like this, but it's not infinite and he has other projects to fund as well. He's not a fool; he knows this. His intention is to have this system to ultimately be financially self-sustaining, like any good commercial enterprise.</font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

"They're welding in some non-structural perforated metal. "<br /><br />Not that simple. The tanks have to be designed to take the loads from the baffles and changes in material properties from the welds. <br /><br />they aren't like trim tabs on your boat. Each change in a launch vehicle resonsates through all the systems

 

[MeteorWayne]

I would suggest it's somewhere between a redesign and an adjustment.<br />Can we all agree on that? <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />There were, as I see it, 3 significant shortcomings in the last test flight (only their 2nd, BTW).<br /><br />1. Sloppy regulation of the shutdown of the first stage engine. This imparted an unacceptable roll, which resulted in:<br /><br />2. Whacking the second stage, which sloshed all the fluids, which led to:<br /><br />3. Unanticipated (whether they should have been or not is a seperate question) gyrations in the COM (Center of Mass) of the 2nd stage. The flight software could not compensate for that; in fact the result was an increasing gyration, rather than a damping, which would be the desired result.<br /><br />I'm not sure problem 1 has been addressed, and don't want to derail my train of thought. Just can't remember what was said about it.<br /><br />Problems 2 and 3 are related, and it appears SpaceX's decision will be to attack it at both points.<br /><br />Extra baffles in the tank should reduce the sloshing. Of course, it will add weight and shift the COM, so the effects can't be predicted precisely, especially when interacting with:<br /><br />The flight software. Obviously, there was a bug that allowed the motion to be increased instead of damped.<br /><br /><br />To me, all these observations and corrections are almost by definitions, results that you would expect from a test flight.<br /><br />If the corrections are properly done, and the customers consider it an operational vehicle, then it will be.<br /><br />Obviously the next flight's customers (and their insurance companies) will be the ultimate arbiter of whether it's operational or not. Such is life in the commercial business <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />For NASA, the customers (We The People) are well insulated from the choices that get implimented. Through Congress and the POTUS, what we (SDC/SPACE "we" that is) want is relegated to the back burner, a <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>