SpaceX Updates (Thread 6)

[Draggendrop Veteran]

Iridium Delay Allows Glimpse of Complex SpaceX Launch Insurance Policy

This article, though boring, had a few bits of SpaceX info...

Insurance officials in the past have said they want to see the first two Iridium Next satellites operational for around four months before underwriting coverage for the follow-on launches, to be sure there are no systemic issues on the satellites.(Iridium artist's concept)

PARIS — Mobile satellite services provider Iridium Communications on July 30 said the Russian launch of its first two Iridium Next second-generation satellites would be delayed by two months, to December, because of a recent problem with hardware assuring the satellites’ Ka-band feeder links.

McLean, Virginia-based Iridium said that despite the delay, it still expects commercial launch provider SpaceX to conduct the seven following Iridium Next launches, each carrying 10 satellites, by the end of 2017.

Insurance officials in the past have said they want to see the first two Iridium Next satellites operational for around four months before underwriting coverage for the follow-on launches, to be sure there are no systemic issues on the satellites.

Insurance requirements may now have implications to launch schedules, besides delays caused by fabrication problems and launch windows.....

That would put the first SpaceX Falcon 9 launch in April 2016 at the earliest even if Hawthorne, California-based SpaceX keeps to its original Iridium Next schedule despite its heavily booked manifest and delays related to its June 28 failure.

In a July 30 filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Iridium said it was having trouble assembling the insurance package that its creditors require as a condition of their loan.

One of the requirements is that Iridium complete the full eight-launch, 72-satellite insurance package three months before the first launch, scheduled aboard a Russian-Ukrainian Dnepr rocket.

In its SEC filing, Iridium said it has begun negotiations with its creditors on a covenant waiver allowing them to proceed with the first launch even as the company seeks to complete the coverage for the full constellation.

Iridium said it has already raised more than 60 percent of the required coverage.

The insurance Iridium is seeking is in three parts and starts with a standard policy covering the Dnepr launch and the two satellites’ first year in orbit.

The second policy covers the  SpaceX Falcon 9 launches. Iridium needs less insurance than it normally would because it has purchased a relaunch option to be exercised if one of the Falcon 9 rockets fails, Iridium spokeswoman Diane Hockenberry said. The relaunch would not require additional insurance, she said.

Iridium would use the relaunch option and load a new Falcon 9 with the nine spare satellites it has ordered as part of its 81-satellite contract with Iridium Next prime contractor Thales Alenia Space of France and Italy.

Discrete policies with launch providers can also adjust premiums of the overall package....

 

Insurance proceeds then would cover the purchase of a 10th satellite ­— whose costs likely would be negligible given that the contractor will have amortized its nonrecurring engineering charges over the 81 spacecraft — and the new Falcon 9 launch.

Iridium will need insurance coverage for the six remaining Falcon 9 launches. The policy it has secured from those insurers that have signed on up to now provides for full coverage with a deductible of two satellites per batch of 10 launched on each rocket.

Iridium would need to lose three satellites from a given launch to make a claim but in that case it could claim for all three losses, plus a pro rata share of the launch cost.

The third policy is what Iridium calls its Constellation Aggregate Insurance, which kicks in for losses that are not covered by the other two policies – but with a five-satellite deductible. Iridium would need to lose six satellites not covered by the previous policies to make a claim under this third policy.

The policy then would reset at zero, meaning the loss of another six satellites would result in another insurance claim. After the 12th loss, each subsequent satellite failure would be covered. The coverage level is somewhat less if Iridium still has  ground spares available that have not been committed by a failure under the first two policies.

Extra info...

 

Satellite and launch insurance rates have been at historically low levels for several years now despite failures of the Russian Proton rocket, the most recent of which – in May – was insured for $390 million.

The June failure of the SpaceX Falcon 9 carried no insurance – not for SpaceX, and not for NASA or the other customers whose hardware was lost, according to insurers.

As a result, insurance premiums are not expected to rise much beyond where they are now unless there are more insured losses. But Iridium Next is a special program and its insurance requirement is turning out to be unusual as well.

 http://spacenews.com/iridium-delay-allows-glimpse-of-complex-spacex-launch-insurance-policy/

That was boring.....lets just get back to launching......Cheers.....

[Draggendrop Veteran]

Look's like the "political integrity unit /s" attempted to come out of a hole and are getting egged....

Lawmakers Fret About SpaceX-led Failure Probe

 

SpaceX’s lead role in the investigation has left 17 U.S. representatives with “serious reservations” about “whether the investigation and engineering rigor applied will be sufficient to prevent future military launch mishaps.” So says a July 30 letter the group sent to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden and Air Force Secretary Deborah James.

The Falcon 9 recently was certified to launch Air Force missions, positioning SpaceX to compete in a market that Denver-based ULA has long had to itself. The first of the competitive launches, of a GPS 3 satellite, is slated for award this year.

The lawmakers wanted to know whether the accident would affect Falcon 9’s hard-won certification.

 

 

“At this time, the Falcon 9 Launch System remains certified and eligible to compete for future national security space launch missions,” Lt. Gen. Sam Greaves, commander of the Air Force’s Space and Missile Systems Center at Los Angeles Air Force Base in California, said in an Aug. 4 statement. However, the Air Force “has the authority to maintain certification or require some flight worthiness activities to be re-accomplished.”

More than half of the lawmakers who signed the letter hail from states where ULA or its business partners have a presence, including Colorado and Alabama. Only two were Democrats.

SpaceX’s government affairs department quickly fired back in an email blast to lawmakers, a copy of which was obtained by SpaceNews.

“The SpaceX led investigation into the CRS-7 mishap has followed the law and processes established with the FAA and our customer, NASA, with direct involvement of the Air Force; it is inaccurate to suggest that the investigation has been non-standard in any way,” the SpaceX email reads.

Greaves apparently agrees with SpaceX on that point.

“I have no concern at all with the process that is being used by SpaceX to conduct the investigation,” Greaves said during a July 31 breakfast here sponsored by the Mitchell Institute. “We treat SpaceX exactly how we treat ULA. There should be no perception SpaceX is getting a pass or that we treat them any differently.”

SpaceX’s email also notes that company-led investigations are standard operating procedure when it comes to launch “mishaps,” which are legally distinct from launch “accidents” under U.S. federal law. A mishap, SpaceX said in its legalese-laden communique, involves “no third-party loss, no flight line deviation, and no loss of life.”

Both the SpaceX failure and the Oct. 28 failure of Orbital ATK’s Antares vehicle during one of the latter company’s NASA Commercial Resupply Services missions legally fit that description of “mishap,” according to the SpaceX letter. Orbital ATK is leading the Antares investigation, which is slated to wrap up any day.

NASA appears to agree with SpaceX’s appraisal of the situation.

“NASA has received the letter and looks forward to reviewing it,” NASA spokeswoman Tabitha Thompson wrote in an Aug. 4 email. “Under the authority of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) which licensed the launch, and per FAA regulations, SpaceX is leading its mishap investigation, as Orbital ATK is leading the investigation into its October 2014 mishap, both with FAA oversight. NASA is participating in both efforts and is confident both companies will understand the specifics of their respective mishaps, learn from them, and correct the issues so they can return to flight.”

SpaceX spokesman John Taylor referred questions about the lawmakers’ letter and the company’s response to the Air Force.

 

Here are the culprits....

The complete list of lawmakers who signed the July 30 letter follows, in the order their signatures appeared.

• Rep. Mike Coffman (R-Colo.)
• Rep. Randy Forbes (R-Va.)
• Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-Ala.)
• Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah)
• Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.)
• Rep. Ken Buck (R-Colo.)
• Rep. Bradley Byrne (R-Ala.)
• Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.)
• Rep. Denny Heck (D-Wash.)
• Rep. Jody Hice (R-Ga.)
• Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-Colo.)
• Rep. Martha Roby (R-Ala.)
• Rep. Terri Sewell (D-Ala.)
• Rep Scott Tipton (R-Colo.)
• Rep. John Flemming (R-La.)
• Rep. Gary Palmer (R-Ala.)
• Rep. David Jolly (R-Fla.)

 http://spacenews.com/lawmakers-fret-about-spacex-led-launch-failure-probe/

A few posters of comments gave a few goodies to look up...check out the link...

DTARS gave a link to check out for political contributions...

1. Go here for the Lockheed Martin Employees Political Action Committee:http://www.fec.gov/fecviewer/C...
2. Select "Contributions to Committees"
3. Download the CSV file.
4. Search for the Representatives on the letter.

Coffman: $1K
Forbes: $7K
Aderholt: $1K
Bishop: $2K
Cole: $6K
etc.

This one is good...

Cheers.......

[BetaguyGZT]

Sooooo .... more of the same behavior from a clearly ULA-slanted pile of drivel. They've no idea what to do now, so they're continuing to default to "familiar/comfort-zone" behaviors and tactics because that's all they know how to do. Let's ask some Politicians who we've got some pull with to craft a pile of steaming excrement which does everything but accuse SpaceX of fabricating the findings of the CRS-7 failure and imply that the U.S. Air Force should revoke their certification ...

Yeah, that's monopolistic practice at its' most low-shot. The only thing ULA knows how to do anymore, it seems. Kick someone in the snarglies.

Shame on them.

[DocM]

JRTI is currently hauling windmill parts. 

39A news....

http://twitter.com/Commercial_Crew/status/628917117799264256

The road to the launch pad is complete @NASAKennedy’s 39A where @SpaceX is building new facilities to #LaunchAmerica.

 

[DocM]

http://www.wired.com/2015/08/grounded-satellite-internet-service-may-open-sky-spacex/

GROUNDED SATELLITE INTERNET SERVICE MAY OPEN SKY TO SPACEX

SATELLITE INTERNET PROVIDER StarBand said on its website today that it will shut down, citing increased costs and competition from other forms of broadband.

The end of StarBand, slated for September 30, underscores the costs involved with offering satellite internet services, even as at least two other companies are trying to muscle into the market. OneWeb, backed by eccentric billionaire Richard Branson, and SpaceX, run by eccentric entrepreneur Elon Musk, both aim to offer satellite internet through large constellations of smaller satellites in low-earth orbit. These could provide faster connection speeds and lower latency than the high-orbit services offered by companies like StarBand. But analysts have questioned whether either OneWeb or SpaceX will be able to sell access to such a service at a low enough price for customers to afford while still turning a profit.

But StarBand’s shutdown offers a potential silver lining to SpaceX. Wireless spectrum for offering internet from the sky is limited, but OneWeb was able to acquire a large spectrum swath from the defunct satellite internet startup Teledesic. With StarBand shutting down, more spectrum may soon be on the market for SpaceX to scoop up.

[Draggendrop Veteran]

GAO Says USAF Needs Reality Check on EELV Planning

"The Air Force is at risk of making decisions about future EELV acquisitions without sufficient knowledge. The Air Force plans to develop an acquisition strategy for the next phase of competitive launches before it has any actionable data from the first competitive launches. In addition, the Air Force views competition as crucial to the success of its new acquisition strategy, yet the viability of a competitive launch industry is uncertain. The launch industry is undergoing changes, and the ability of the domestic industry to sustain two or more providers in the long-term, while desirable, is unclear. Additionally, only one company is currently certified to compete with ULA for national security launches, and there are no other potential competitors in the near future. To adequately plan for future competitions and ensure informed decision making before committing to a strategy, it will be important for the Air Force to obtain knowledge about its new acquisition approach and on the launch industry."

 http://nasawatch.com/archives/2015/08/gao-says-usaf-n.html

There are a lot of issues to address with this one statement. It appears that the Air Force, from prior news releases, was to trim the launch requirements to better reflect a fast changing environment for potential launch providers. Once (If they ever get around to it) they have data in from the costs for SpaceX launches, ULA will not stand a chance. In that same note, will Blue Origin have a launcher, in the future, to carry the smallest AF payloads. Will ULA be willing to "earn" a living in lieu of ransacking the treasury.

If the Air Force really wants cost effectiveness, the answer is clear. If they want 2 launch providers, ULA will probably play "The poor little company" and demand guarantees.

ULA, belonging/associated with a large subsidiary, has no excuse...I say, let the most cost effective win and be done. 

Cheers....

[DocM]

If Blue Origin joins SpaceX as a proven, more affordable, launch provider ULA will be up a creek with half a paddle.  It wouldn't surprise me to see Vulcan as a stopgap, if it ever flies, and ULA become a hardware contractor for Blue Origin"s own launcher - which may well be larger than Vulcan. That or ULA simply folds and Blue Origin puts up a factory, or takes over ULA's.

[bguy_1986]

Crew Dragon Simulated Flight Ensures Hardware, Software are Ready for Missions

SpaceX recently powered up its Crew Dragon avionics test bed at its facility in Hawthorne, California, by simulating a crew flight to the International Space Station. During the avionics functionality check, engineers were able to make sure the spacecraft’s hardware and software worked well together in a flight-like environment. The avionics are known as the brains of a spacecraft, controlling all the critical automated operations of a flight.

“It may not sound exciting, but it’s a really, really important tool. We can basically fly the Crew Dragon on the ground — flip the switches, touch the screens, test the algorithms and the batteries – all before testing the avionics system in flight,” said Hans Koenigsmann, vice president of mission assurance for SpaceX. “It’s important to get the avionics right before putting it into the capsule.”

The SpaceX avionics test bed is similar to the Shuttle Avionics Integration Lab, or SAIL, in Houston, which was used throughout NASA’s Space Shuttle Program to test the interaction of hardware and software before modifying code on the vehicles for flight.

 https://blogs.nasa.gov/commercialcrew/

[BetaguyGZT]

 https://blogs.nasa.gov/commercialcrew/

[barrywhite]Awwww yeah.[/barrywhite]

Simulators are always the first line of testing, proving and finalizing a completed design. If they've got one, it means that they are ~1 year of a final version of Dragon 2.

Since this is SpaceX, it's a safe bet that they'll have this bad girl into a flight-ready chassis (Playmate of the Century, Centerfold ...  ) in 3-6 months and green-status for its' maiden flight. I'd love to be able to get my grubby paws on that interface, hehe.

Sorry, I'm a nerd, I dig a good interface.

[Draggendrop Veteran]

[barrywhite]Awwww yeah.[/barrywhite]

Simulators are always the first line of testing, proving and finalizing a completed design. If they've got one, it means that they are ~1 year of a final version of Dragon 2.

Since this is SpaceX, it's a safe bet that they'll have this bad girl into a flight-ready chassis (Playmate of the Century, Centerfold ...  ) in 3-6 months and green-status for its' maiden flight. I'd love to be able to get my grubby paws on that interface, hehe.

Sorry, I'm a nerd, I dig a good interface.

/s ....I've pre-ordered my "centerfold", early birds get a free rocketfuel scent strip and reserved lawnchair spot for launch......

[BetaguyGZT]

/s ....I've pre-ordered my "centerfold", early birds get a free rocketfuel scent strip and reserved lawnchair spot for launch......

.. and, no doubt, running one version or another of GNU/Linux as the OS. Let's see if I'm correct ...

from http://space.stackexchange.com/questions/9243/what-computer-and-software-is-used-by-the-falcon-9

Dragon and Falcon 9 use a version of Linux.

 

Hehe.

[Draggendrop Veteran]

NASA Delays Commercial Cargo Award Yet Again

Keith's note: If you look at the JSC webpage for Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) 2 Contract you will see a schedule page that shows that proposals were received on 12/2/14. NASA originally planned to have a CRS2 award announcement in May 2015 but was delayed with the rationale being "4/16/15 Updated the Milestone Schedule Award date due to additional time required to evaluate proposals." There is a new note stating "8/7/15 Updated the Milestone Schedule to reflect an updated award date to provide additional time to evaluate Final Proposal Revisions (FPRs)." The planned CRS2 contract award date is now shown as 11/05/15. No CRS2 contract start date is shown.

Oh yes: both of the two current contractors lost a rocket and its cargo in the past year.

Keith Cowling, Nasa Watch

 

http://nasawatch.com/archives/2015/08/nasa-delays-com.html

 

JSC webpage...

http://procurement.jsc.nasa.gov/crs2/

schedule page...

http://procurement.jsc.nasa.gov/crs2/schedule.asp

shows........

 

The following is the anticipated schedule for the Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) 2 Contract. This schedule is subject to change.  Please continue to monitor the following website, http://procurement.jsc.nasa.gov/crs2/ as the schedule and solicitation will be posted there.
Milestone	Plan	Actual
Request for Information	2/21/14	2/21/14
Industry Day	4/10/14	4/10/14
Release Draft Request for Proposal	6/16/14	6/16/14
Pre-Solicitation Conference	08/07/14	08/07/14
Release Final Request for Proposal	09/30/14	09/25/14
Proposals Due	12/2/14	12/2/14
Contract Award	11/05/15
Contract Start

 

Next CRS award will be 5th of November, 2015 

Cheers......

[BetaguyGZT]

November 5th 2015?! Amazing that they'd choose that date. It's as if it were the temporal junction point for the entire Space-Time Continuum ... or it could be just an amazing coincidence.

If it's awarded at 10:04 pm on that date I'm going to have kittens. Just saying.

[Draggendrop Veteran]

[Draggendrop Veteran]

I read this article, the one I am about to post about, a few days ago. All I got out of it is pure amazement at the level of "grey matter" one see's from political trough feeding. It was a non issue article, but it keeps popping up along with a huge advertising blitz by ULA and Orbital, in many news outlets. These two companies make it sound like they invented space travel....first, the article.....

House Science Chairman Alleges Special Treatment for SpaceX 

WASHINGTON — The chairman of the House Science Committee prodded NASA about what he suspects is special treatment accorded SpaceX following the failure of the company’s Falcon 9 rocket on an International Space Station resupply mission.

In an Aug. 4 letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) asked why the space agency formed an independent review team to investigate the Oct. 28 failure of Orbital ATK’s Antares rocket during a Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) mission, but did not do the same following the June 28 failure of SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket on a similar mission.

“The discrepancy between the approaches taken by NASA in response to these two similar events raises questions about not only the equity and fairness of NASA’s process for initiating independent accident investigations, but also the fidelity of the investigations themselves,” Smith wrote.

 

According to the letter, NASA’s CRS contracts with Orbital ATK and SpaceX give the agency discretion to independently investigate mishaps during commercial cargo launches, even though NASA does not have any statutory imperative to do so.  CRS launches are licensed by the Federal Aviation Administration, making most accident investigations the responsibility of the launch provider.

Neither Orbital ATK nor SpaceX have concluded their respective failure reviews. But Orbital ATK has blamed Antares’ AJ-26 main engine — which the company is replacing for future missions — while SpaceX has said a faulty strut on Falcon 9’s upper stage appears to be the culprit.

According to Smith’s letter, NASA detailed its decision to investigate Orbital ATK’s failure, but not SpaceX’s, in a pair of memos written by Bill Gerstenmaier, the agency’s associate administrator for human exploration and operations.

Smith’s letter, which cited — but did not reproduce — one of the Gerstenmaier memos, said NASA appointed an official from its Launch Services Program as a “primary interface” to the SpaceX investigation. “We would like the [launch services program] representative to be considered a member of the investigative team,” Gerstenmaier wrote in a memo to SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell, according to Smith’s letter.

Orbital ATK spokesman Barron Beneski declined to comment on Smith’s allegation, first reported byReuters, of a double standard on NASA’s part.

“We’ll leave that for others to decide,” Beneski wrote in an Aug. 11 email. “The inner workings of our [accident investigation] team are confidential, other [than] to say they’ve left no stone unturned and have availed themselves of all possible resources.”

SpaceX spokesman John Taylor declined to comment for this story.

NASA spokeswoman Tabatha Thompson declined to say why the agency stood up an independent investigation team for the Orbital ATK failure, but not the SpaceX failure.

“NASA has received the letters and looks forward to reviewing them,” Thomspon wrote in an Aug. 12 email. “Under the authority of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), which licensed the launch, and per FAA regulations, SpaceX is leading its mishap investigation, as Orbital ATK is leading the investigation into its October 2014 mishap, both with FAA oversight. NASA is participating in both efforts and is confident both companies will understand the specifics of their respective mishaps, learn from them, and correct the issues so they can return to flight.”

While Orbital ATK has no aspirations to fly crew to the space station, SpaceX holds a $2.6 billion NASA Commercial Crew contract to develop a human-rated version of its Dragon space capsule and Falcon 9 rocket. SpaceX could begin launching ISS crews as soon as 2017.

Smith referenced that in his letter.

“One would expect that NASA would be more interested in independently ascertaining the technical root cause failure of a vehicle that will use similar components for a future human mission,” Smith wrote.

SpaceX is designing a crew escape system for the human-rated version of its Dragon capsule, and Shotwell has said the system would have kept astronauts safe, had any been aboard during the June 28 launch failure.

Smith asked NASA to respond in writing to his letter by Aug. 17. 

 

http://spacenews.com/house-science-chairman-bucks-at-special-treatment-for-spacex/

This is just my personal opinion

 The key sentence here, from the article, is....."CRS launches are licensed by the Federal Aviation Administration, making most accident investigations the responsibility of the launch provider".

Next, from the article...."According to the letter, NASA’s CRS contracts with Orbital ATK and SpaceX give the agency discretion to independently investigate mishaps during commercial cargo launches, even though NASA does not have any statutory imperative to do so."

Was there a difference here...YES.....and there should have been. Orbital is of the same mold as ULA, and we know what Bruno is like. SpaceX is heavily involved with NASA, and NASA is fully aware of SpaceX's procedures,integrity and capabilities for multiple future ventures on the drawing board and prototyped right now. SpaceX is fully open to NASA and this affords having a NASA rep on the investigative board for the analysis, on a competent team, which NASA would be hard pressed to beat.

Orbital's contract is for taxi service only, using questionable engines, and in the mist of a redesign of their launcher. An old school company will get an old school investigation.

I am insulted to think that the House Science Chairmen would put SpaceX in the same class as Orbital. The "science chairman" needs to study a little more "science", and get off the feeding trough...his "spots" have already been publicly shown....

SpaceX was right to deflect this sillyness to NASA and get on with the real work of leaving these "science" people in the dust.

It's called Trust, and Trust is Earned............../ end of Draggendrop rant...............I feel better now.............. 

[Draggendrop Veteran]

Kelly urges funding for commercial crew program

 

NASA astronaut Scott Kelly is pictured inside the International Space Station’s Unity module in this photo from April 2015. Credit: NASA

Astronaut Scott Kelly, 143 days into a planned 341-day stay aboard the International Space Station, urged lawmakers Monday to restore full funding to NASA’s commercial crew program to avoid expected launch delays and continued sole reliance on Russia for transportation to and from the International Space Station.

In an interview with CBS News, Kelly said the commercial crew program “is very important to us” and while “I hope we’ll get there with the current funding, I don’t think we’ll get there on the current schedule, obviously, or the schedule we would have liked.”

“But it is very important, and hopefully people will recognize this and give NASA the support we need to get it done,” he said.

Closer to home, Kelly and his crewmates are standing by for the launch Wednesday of a Japanese H-2B rocket carrying an automated HTV cargo ship loaded with 4.5 tons of supplies and equipment. Liftoff from the Tanegashima Space Center in southern Japan is targeted for 7:50 a.m. EDT, weather permitting, with arrival at the space station early Monday.

The flight is especially important given the back-to-back failures of a Russian Progress supply ship last April and the loss of a SpaceX Dragon cargo ship in June. Russian Progress flights resumed July 3 and two more flights are planned before the end of the year.

But a successful HTV launch and berthing is needed to avoid shortfalls that otherwise could be expected this fall.

“We’re in good shape right now, but if for some reason HTV didn’t get here, we get pretty low on certain consumables probably in late September, early October timeframe,” Kelly said. “I’m sure we would figure out ways to bridge the gap on those things. … But if for some reason HTV gets delayed for a significant amount of time or something else happens, we do run into some issues.

“We’ve been pretty good about dealing with those things, and I’m sure we will, we would figure out a way around it, but it is a very important launch for us coming up.”

In the wake of the Bush administration’s decision to retire the shuttle, NASA funded development of commercial cargo ships to replace the lost capability of its winged orbiters and a separate program to develop commercially managed crew ferry ships.

Boeing and SpaceX won a combined $6.8 billion in NASA contracts in 2014 to develop crew capsules to carry U.S. and partner astronauts to and from the space station. Initial test flights are targeted for 2017, two years later than initially planned because of earlier budget shortfalls.

The current 2017 launch targets assume NASA gets $1.2 billion in funding in fiscal 2016 as requested. As it currently stands, draft legislation in the House would cut that to $1 billion while the Senate has earmarked $900 million.

As a result, NASA recently extended its contract with Roscosmos, the Russian federal space agency, informing Congress that it plans to spend another $490 million to secure six more Soyuz seats for U.S. and partner astronauts through 2018 and landing support into 2019. That’s on top of a $458 million contract last year for six seats through the end of 2017.

The average cost per seat under the latest contract extension is nearly $82 million.

 

A view inside a mock-up of SpaceX’s Crew Dragon spacecraft. Credit: NASA

In a letter to Congress Aug. 5, NASA Administrator Charles Bolden said “for five years now, the Congress, while incrementally increasing annual funding, has not adequately funded the commercial crew program to return human spaceflight launches to American soil this year, as planned.”

“This has resulted in continued sole reliance on the Russian Soyuz spacecraft as our crew transport vehicle for American and international partner crews to the ISS,” he wrote.

He said the proposed 2016 budget “would result in NASA’s inability to fund several planned (contract) milestones in FY 2016 and would likely result in funds running out for both contractors during the spring/summer of FY 2016.”

“If this occurs,” he said, “the existing fixed-price contracts may need to be renegotiated, likely resulting in further schedule slippage and increased cost.”

Asked if the funding shortfall might force NASA to proceed with a single contractor at some point, Kelly agreed “that would be a concern.”

“I would imagine that would eat into some of your margin for success,” he said. “If you have two vehicles being built and one of them doesn’t work out, you’ve still got the other one and down selecting earlier than we’d like would probably make that … less of a likelihood we’d get the vehicle we want in the time that we would want.”

Space has not yet been widely discussed by presidential candidates, but Kelly urged them consider the program’s value and support the necessary funding to keep it on track.

“What we get from building a space station, the economic return, the science return is very, very important to our nation, to our economy,” he said. “I would like to see all the candidates, really, support us, and I think they probably do in some regard, but also support a bigger budget with the commercial crew (program) and being able to build that vehicle on the time frame that we need to to support our … future missions.

“We need to be able to put that money into the U.S. economy and U.S. companies versus sending it overseas,” he said. “So I hope they would see that.”

 

http://spaceflightnow.com/2015/08/17/kelly-urges-funding-for-commercial-crew-program/

Well done...........and a Thank's to Scott Kelly on ISS.........Cheers.......

[IsItPluggedIn]

Asked if the funding shortfall might force NASA to proceed with a single contractor at some point, Kelly agreed “that would be a concern.”

Soooo are they reducing the funding so that NASA pulls the funding from SpaceX and gives it all to Boeing?

[DocM]

That may be the intent of the 6 or so ULA contributed congresscritters making the noise, but most of the funding diversion is because of SLS. Some of its supporters are afraid SpaceX and Blue Origin heavy lifters will make it obsolete before it can fly Orion with humans aboard. That's looking like 2022.

SpaceX's BFR and Blues heavy may well fly before 2020 since both of their engines are deep into development, Raptor components are already on the test stand and BE-4's getting close, so they're real threats.

[Draggendrop Veteran]

NASA Considering More Cargo Orders from Orbital ATK, SpaceX

Over the last year, Orbital ATK and SpaceX quietly nabbed more orders for ISS cargo deliveries from NASA — and the agency may order even more. Credit: NASA

WASHINGTON — Having delayed the award of follow-on Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) contracts until at least November, NASA is considering ordering more International Space Station cargo deliveries from Orbital ATK and SpaceX, both of which had already quietly hauled in additional orders under CRS deals signed in 2008.

After contract modifications initiated late last year and finalized this summer, SpaceX is on the hook for a total of 15 flights to the space station, up from the 12 NASA ordered in 2008. Orbital ATK wound up with 10 flights, up from eight, following the latest round of contract modifications, NASA spokeswoman Stephanie Schierholz wrote in an Aug. 20 email.

“NASA is discussing additional modifications with both companies,” Schierholz wrote.

 

 

Schierholz declined to disclose the value of NASA’s latest CRS orders. “[W]e are in an active procurement for CRS-2 [and] to maintain fair competition under the CRS contract, it is essential that NASA protect the commercial pricing aspects under the contracts,” she wrote.

NASA’s original CRS order obligated SpaceX and Orbital ATK to deliver 20 metric tons of cargo each to ISS. At the time, that worked out to 12 flights for SpaceX totaling $1.6 billion and eight flights for Orbital ATK totaling $1.9 billion. Each company’s indefinite quantity, indefinite delivery CRS contract is good through 2018 and has a maximum value of $3.1 billion.

Orbital ATK and SpaceX now face competition for a follow-on CRS contract from at least three companies: Boeing, Sierra Nevada and Lockheed Martin. Those companies, and the incumbents, have all confirmed they bid on CRS-2 when NASA solicited offers in September.

In the CRS contract mods already completed, Orbital ATK originally got three additional flights, Schierholz said. However, two of Orbital ATK’s missions were combined after the company decided to enlarge its Cygnus space tug and launch it aboard a United Launch Alliance Atlas 5 from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida. Atlas 5 is more powerful than Orbital ATK’s Antares vehicle, which is out of commission until early next year following an Oct. 28 launch failure at the Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport in Wallops Island, Virginia.

Orbital ATK is using Atlas 5 while it replaces Antares’ main-stage engine with new Russian-made RD-181s. Antares was using AJ-26 engines, Soviet-vintage NK-33s refurbished and rebranded by Aerojet Rocketdyne of Sacramento, California. After the AJ-26 was blamed for the Antares failure, Orbital ATK decided to switch engines and ordered one ULA Atlas 5 through Lockheed Martin Commercial Launch Services for a Cygnus launch slated for December.

Orbital ATK disclosed Aug. 12 that it ordered a second Atlas 5 for a Cygnus mission in early 2016.

“We do not have any other Atlas launches planned for our CRS contract,” Orbital ATK spokeswoman Vicki Cox wrote in an Aug. 13 email. She would not say whether the company held options to purchase more Atlas 5s.

Both Atlas 5-launched Cygnus tugs will carry their maximum load of 3,500 kilograms of pressurized cargo. Orbital ATK will launch at least three, and possibly four, CRS missions in 2016, Frank DeMauro, the company’s Cygnus program manager, said in an Aug. 12 phone interview.

Like Orbital ATK, SpaceX is also recovering from a launch failure during a CRS mission. The company’s Falcon 9 rocket disintegrated about two minutes after launch on what was supposed to be its seventh paid cargo run for NASA.

SpaceX founder and Chief Executive Elon Musk implicated a faulty upper-stage strut in the failure, although the Hawthorne, California-based company has yet to publish an official report on the accident.

Musk has also said SpaceX could resume launching as soon as September, but an industry source said Aug. 19 the company is now planning a November return to flight. That launch would be a commercial mission for SES of Luxembourg using the newly upgraded Falcon 9 rocket.

SpaceX’s next cargo run for NASA, its eighth, would also happen in November, this person said.

SpaceX spokesman John Taylor declined to comment about the company’s return-to-flight timetable and referred questions about its CRS contract to NASA.

 

http://spacenews.com/nasa-considering-more-cargo-orders-from-orbital-atk-spacex/

Looks like the competition is coming out of the woodwork.....Maybe it's about time to award to the cost effective bidder?.......That probably will not happen and we will see lopsided bids again....check out Orbitals last contract.....
"12 flights for SpaceX totaling $1.6 billion and eight flights for Orbital ATK totaling $1.9 billion"

Cheers......

[DocM]

Extra flights for Spacex were announced months ago so Space News is just padding an article about Orbital ATK's added flights. 

The delay in the CRS-2 contracts is what, the second or third delay? Sounds like they want to see how the return to flight missions go, and perhaps they need more time to sort out the new competitors proposals.

Of those new entrants Lockheeds Jupiter/Exoliner is interesting but overkill and likely the most expensive, and Dream Chased Cargo has the most work to do before its ready to fly. I'd put my money on the Boeing CST-100 Cargo joining SpaceX and Orbital ATK.

So the return to flight mission will be the new and larger Falcon 9 "v1.2" launching the 5,300 kg SES-9 commsat to GTO, and presumably the final v1.1 will fly later.

 

>....an industry source said Aug. 19 the company is now planning a November return to flight. That launch would be a commercial mission for SES of Luxembourg using the newly upgraded Falcon 9 rocket. >

[Draggendrop Veteran]

A few posts ago, mention was made about "special treatment for SpaceX" from the "special science branch".......well, here is NASA's response, and a great one to boot......

 NASA Responds to Congressional Inquiry on Cargo Losses

"Dear Chairman Smith: Thank you very much for your letter of August 4, 2015 regarding the recent space launch failures of June 28,2015 and October 28, 2014. I appreciate your sincere commitment to our Nation's leadership in space and NASA has always shared that commitment. I am pleased for the opportunity to address your concerns. I would also mention that on August 3, 2015, Vice Admiral Joe Dyer, Chairman of the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP) provided a written response related to concerns that we were treating SpaceX differently than Orbital ATK with respect to our oversight of the respective accident investigations to Mr. Chris Shank, Policy Director of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee. I think you will find Vice Admiral Dyer's response is in basic agreement with the contents of my letter following.".....

 

http://nasawatch.com/archives/2015/08/nasa-responds-t-2.html

The rest of the letter....

 http://spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=47704

Status Report From: NASA HQ 
Posted: Tuesday, August 25, 2015

 

Original letter (pdf)

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Office of the Administrator 
Washington, DC 20546-0001 
August 24, 2015

The Honorable Lamar S. Smith 
Chairman Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 
U.S. House of Representatives 
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Smith:

Thank you very much for your letter of August 4,20 15 regarding the recent space launch failures of June 28, 2015 and October 28, 2014. I appreciate your sincere commitment to our Nation's leadership in space and NASA has always shared that commitment. I am pleased for the opportunity to address your concerns. I would also mention that on August 3, 2015, Vice Admiral Joe Dyer, Chairman of the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP) provided a written response related to concerns that we were treating SpaceX differently than Orbital ATK with respect to our oversight of the respective accident investigations to Mr. Chris Shank, Policy Director of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee. I think you will find Vice Admiral Dyer's response is in basic agreement with the contents of my letter following.

First and foremost, I want to assure you that NASA is performing an independent analysis of the Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) SpX-7 ("CRS-7") launch failure. For the Orbital ATK failure, we chose to establish a formal Independent Review Team (IRT) to, as you pointed out, "amplify the learning for the NASA teams." While it may not have been as visible, we chose to do a similar thing for the SpaceX failure, conducting an independent review, but using existing mechanisms that were already in place. Note that due to this misunderstanding, many of the questions posed were written under an incorrect premise that NASA is not conducting an independent review of the SpX-7 accident; therefore, we have attempted to answer the spirit of those questions.

Decision to Stand-up an IRT for the Orbital ATK Antares Orb-3 Launch Failure

Since the Orbital ATK Antares launch was conducted under a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) license, the Antares launch failure was not considered a NASA mishap. The process for conducting a launch failure investigation under a FAA-licensed launch is codified in 14 CFR 417.111. Under the International Space Station (ISS) Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) contract, NASA must be allowed to participate in a CRS provider's Accident Investigation Board (AIB). At the prerogative of the contractor, in this case Orbital AT& NASA was also provided a voting membership in their AIB. However, to accomplish the spirit of conducting an independent investigation by which to inform and amplify the learning for the NASA team, the Associate Administrator (AA) for the Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate (HEOMD) established a NASA-led IRT. NASA Procedural Requirement (NPR) 8621.1, NASA Procedural Requirements for Mishap and Close Call Reporting, Investigating, and Recordkeeping guided the thinking of the HEOMD AA and his decision to form such an independent review. The HEOMD AA also consulted with the NASA Chief of Safety and Mission Assurance in making this decision [Questions 9- 13]. As stated previously, the ultimate goal of the IRT was to amplify the learning for the NASA team. It would provide a validation of the contractor-led AIB efforts to ascertain technical root cause, define corrective actions, and inform the Agency's risk posture to support a return-to-flight in an ISS cargo resupply capacity. The decision to create an IRT also avoided any limitations on NASA's ability to understand the launch failure data and analysis [Question 2]. Although the U.S. Air Force (USAF) is not performing their own independent review of the Orb-3 accident, they requested participation in the NASA IRT, which was granted. NASA and the USAF have a history of collaboration and sharing launch vehicle related information and data [Question 14].

Decision that NASA Launch Services Program (LSP) will serve the Function of the IRT for the SpX-7 Launch Failure

Like the Orbital ATK Antares launch, the SpX-7 launch was conducted under an FAA license, and was therefore not considered a NASA mishap; however, in the case of the Falcon 9, the LSP has two contract launch service task orders in place with SpaceX under our NASA Launch Services I1 (NLS II) contract for the launch of two high-value payloads on the Falcon 9 launch vehicle. NASA's NLS II contract allows NASA to stand up its own independent review or assessment team for an anomaly or launch failure of a launch vehicle directly applicable to an on-contract launch service, and the commercial launch service provider is contractually bound to support and cooperate with NASA's independent team. In addition, NASA Policy Directive (NPD) 8610.7 Launch Services Risk Mitigation Policy for NASA-Owned and/or NASA-Sponsored Payloads/Missions, and NPD 861 0.23 Launch Vehicle Technical Oversight Policy are incorporated into the NLS 11 contract. NPD 8610.7 requires a post-flight assessment be performed by LSP of every launch of every vehicle certified or in the process of being certified for use under the NLS-I1 contract. Per this NPD, "[rjesolution of all flight anomalies and mission failures is required by the launch service contractor with Launch Service Program (LSP) technical evaluation and disoosition" [emphasis added 1. NPD 86 10.23 calls out specific data, products, processes, events, etc. into which LSP shall be provided insight by the commercial launch provider and lists specific events and items over which LSP has approval authority [Question 8].

Since extensive independent analysis was already underway due to the standard practices, policies, and contract requirements described above, and since LSP is in a unique position to accomplish an efficient and effective independent review, the AA for HEOMD believed that LSP7s investigation would lead to an in-depth understanding of the events. Not only was this the most efficient use of NASA resources, but it also afforded a single interface for providing data and other products from SpaceX and its subcontractors in support of all three NASA Programs interested in SpaceX launch services: the LSP, the Commercial Resupply Services Program and the Commercial Crew Program. The AA for HEOMD also factored in the level of inclusion being afforded to LSP by SpaceX and felt confident that this approach would provide an efficient, effective, and independent assessment of the data. This is documented in a Memorandum for the Record dated August 3, 2015 [Question 9]. As in the case of the Orb-3 accident, the AA for HEOMD consulted with the NASA Chief of Safety and Mission Assurance regarding the need for an IRT. It was the AA for HEOMD's discretion to decide that the LSP effort would serve the function of an independent review team [Question 10-11].

Through this independent review effort, NASA will benefit from the "continuous learning" afforded by analysis of the data, findings, and rationale which will enhance our knowledge of the Falcon 9 systems, as well as our understanding of Spacex's launchrelated processes [Question 1]. Since there has been no decision to forego an independent review of the SpX-7 accident, there has been no consideration by NASA of any factors such as the financial impact on contractors associated with the delay of the Jason-3 or commercial resupply missions [Question 151. As with Orb-3, the USAF is also participating as an observer in the SpaceX Accident Investigation Team (AIT), and may be conducting some independent analysis. NASA LSP is "leading" the independent review effort because of the existing contracts NASA has for high-value missions to beflown on the SpaceX Falcon 9 launch vehicle, and because the next Government launch utilizing the Falcon 9 will be a NASA mission. NASA and the USAF have a history of collaboration and sharing launch-vehicle-related information and data. NASA is sharing, and will continue to share, our findings with the USAF; however, each agency will need to make its own independent engineering judgments from the data to match a given mission risk posture [Question 14].

Independent Reviews

In both the Orb-3 and SpX-7 accident investigations, NASA has significant insight into the findings and rationale developed by the contractors. In addition, the Government is being afforded access to all data and physical evidence, as well as access to the contractor teams in support of both independent review team efforts. Specifically, the mechanisms under which these interactions have been agreed to are found in the NLS-I1 and CRS contracts. Both accidents fall under the CRS contract. Like NLS-11, this contract is also a commercial launch service, but is more akin to a "delivery-on-orbit" launch service that relies on the commercial launch provider. NASA's mission assurance efforts under CRS were focused on ISS proximity operations rather than on the launch vehicle. This was a conscious choice by NASA for the CRS program in an effort to reduce costs and allow the commercial launch provider broad latitude to innovate [Question 5]. As mentioned above, NPD 8610.23 is a contractual requirement in the NLS-11 contract, and calls out specific data, products, processes, events, etc. into which LSP shall be provided insight by the commercial launch provider. In addition, the NPD lists specific events and items over which LSP has approval authority [Question 8]. Although different mechanisms are being utilized, NASA is still conducting an independent review of the two failures.

Specific to the SpX-7 investigation activities, we will have the additional involvement of the Commercial Crew Program representative to provide insight into potential implications to that program. Also for SpX-7, because the Falcon 9 launch vehicle is to be used to launch high-value payloads, for example the upcoming Jason-3 mission, NASA LSP will also review SpaceX's readiness to launch that mission as part of our Flight Readiness Review process, as documented in NPD 8610.24 Launch Services Program Pro-Launch Readiness Reviews. Further, LSP will look carefully at the cause(s) for the failure and see if any information learned from the investigation might prompt an examination of other systems on the launch vehicle that could be susceptible to similar or related problems. By maximizing learning from this failure, we can help to ensure that a more reliable launcher is available. Rather than providing less insight into the SpX-7 investigation over the Orb-3 investigation, we are providing direct insight through Commercial Crew personnel involvement and through the LSP Jason-3 pre-launch reviews that will guide our decisions for flight readiness [Question 6]. Both independent reviews will seek to validate the efforts of the contractor-led AIBs. For the SpX-7 investigation, NASA must agree with the findings, recommendations, and implementation for return-to-flight, prior to NASA utilizing that same model launch vehicle for a high-value NASA mission, such as Jason-3 [Question 7].

The material above focuses on the policy and contractual mechanisms for providing NASA the insight and level of access needed to perform our independent reviews. However, an effective way to achieve insight and influence in a contractor-led accident investigation from a mishap on a FAA-licensed launch is for NASA's participation to be viewed as "value added" by (he commercial provider. In this way, NASA benefits from the investigation by having NASA personnel directly use analysis and test data and the contractor gets to understand the benefits of different analysis techniques. Ultimately NASA and industry end up with more reliable systems. Similar processes have been followed when heritage commercial launch service suppliers have experienced major anomalies that could have resulted in mission loss. Those heritage supplier launches were not FAA-licensed missions, but there were anomaly investigations led by the contractor with participation from NASA and the USAF which.shared the common goal of returning to successful flight [Question 13].

Government Leverage

For Orb-3, in addition to the formal IRT established, NASA has a representative on Orbital ATK's AD3 as a voting member. For SpX-7, the NASA representative is not a voting member of SpaceX's AIB. Per 14 CFR 41 7.111, the contractor does not have to name a Government member, other than the FAA, to be a voting member as part of their AIB. However, for SpaceX, NASA will have leverage under the terms of the NLS-11 Contract where NASA will have the right to acceptlreject any finding, root cause, and corrective action resulting from SpaceX's board. For the Orb-3 investigation, where NASA has stood-up an IRT and NASA has a voting member on the AIB, if there is disagreement over root cause, contributing factors, etc., the true leverage of NASA will be when and whether to load our cargo for launch to the ISS [Question 3-4],

Conclusion

In addition to the two memos from NASA you mentioned in your letter (attached here for completeness), I am attaching two additional memos, also from Bill Gerstenrnaier, AA for HEOMD, where in one memo he identified the NASA interfaces to the Orbital ATK investigation activities, and in the other he documented the rationale behind use of the LSP organization to serve the function of an IRT for the SpX-7 launch failure investigation.

In closing, I want to thank you for your letter and for communicating your concerns. Please be assured NASA is conducting independent reviews of both Orbital ATK and SpaceX failures and we are committed to sharing our findings with each contractor so they can improve their own knowledge, their own processes, and their own reliability. As always, NASA shares your commitment to our Nation's leadership in space. NASA believes that our leadership will be best maintained through a competitive, innovative, commercial U.S. space transportation industry. As you know, spaceflight is difficult, and while these two recent losses were not welcome, we believe our U.S. commercial space transportation industry will emerge stronger and more competitive from these failures. We have confidence that our commercial suppliers are up to the challenge and will independently review their approaches to return to flight.

Thank you for your interest in this matter. Please do not hesitate to contact me if there are additional questions pertaining to this matter.

Sincerely
(signed)
Charles F. Bolden Jr.
Administrator

4 Enclosures 
cc: The Honorable Eddie Bernice Johnson

 

// end //

 

This was........ Well done Mr Bolden Jr. 

[Draggendrop Veteran]

As per above letter......

NASA Says No Special Treatment for SpaceX in Falcon 9 Investigation

WASHINGTON — Responding to congressional criticism that suggested NASA was giving SpaceX special treatment, NASA Administrator Charles Bolden said the agency is conducting an independent review of the company’s June launch failure.

In an Aug. 24 letter to House Science Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas), Bolden said the appearance of special treatment accorded to SpaceX over Orbital ATK was a “misunderstanding” because NASA is taking a different approach to reviews of the two companies’ launch failures.

“First and foremost, I want to assure you that NASA is performing an independent analysis” of the June 28 Falcon 9 launch failure on SpaceX’s seventh cargo mission to the International Space Station under its Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) contract with NASA, Bolden wrote in the letter, released by the agency Aug. 25.

 

Orbital’s Antares rocket failed in October, also on a CRS mission to the space station.

Bolden’s letter is in response to one by Smith Aug. 4, where he questioned NASA’s decision to establish a formal independent review panel for the Antares failure but not for the Falcon 9 accident. Smith indicated that choice appeared to reflect favoritism towards SpaceX.

“The discrepancy between the approaches taken by NASA in response to these two similar events raises questions about not only the equity and fairness of NASA’s process for initiating independent accident investigations, but also the fidelity of the investigations themselves,” Smith wrote.

In his response, Bolden noted that immediately after the Antares failure, NASA decided to establish a formal independent review team.

While NASA was formally part of Orbital’s own accident investigation board, Bolden said the independent review was intended to “inform and amplify the learning for the NASA team.”

For the Falcon 9 failure, however, NASA instead elected to have the agency’s Launch Services Program (LSP) lead the review into the accident. Unlike Antares, which has no other NASA contracts beyond its CRS flights, NASA has contracts for Falcon 9 missions beyond ISS cargo missions. That includes the launch of the Jason-3 satellite, which prior to the June failure was scheduled for launch in August.

Bolden wrote that William Gerstenmaier, NASA associate administrator for human exploration and operations, concluded LSP’s review of the failure “would lead to an in-depth understanding of the events.” It would also, he said, be an efficient use of resources, since NASA’s commercial crew program is also interested in the investigation.

Bolden’s response to Smith included an Aug. 3 “memorandum for the record” from Gerstenmaier discussing his decision to let LSP lead NASA’s investigation into the Falcon 9 failure. “Their experience and understanding of the Falcon 9 system for NASA robotic missions places LSP in a unique position to most efficiently and independently evaluate the events that occurred on CRS-7 that led to its failure and to ensure that the resulting corrective actions are implemented appropriately,” he wrote in the memo.

Unlike the Antares investigation, NASA does not have a full voting representative on SpaceX’s accident investigation board. However, Bolden said that NASA still has “leverage” over the report’s findings because of its other launch contracts, which give the agency the right to accept or reject the findings of that investigation and any corrective actions before allowing those launches to take place.

That difference in approaches in NASA’s independent reviews of the failures, Bolden acknowledged, may not have been clear to Smith and others. “Note that due to this misunderstanding, many of the questions posed were written under an incorrect premise that NASA is not conducting an independent review” of the Falcon 9 launch failure, he wrote, referring to a set of questions in Smith’s letter.

Neither company has formally completed their investigations into their respective launch failures, but both have identified their likely causes. Orbital ATK executives said earlier this year they traced the cause of the Antares failure to excessive bearing wear in the turbopump of an AJ-26 first-stage engine, but have not disclosed what caused that wear. Orbital is replacing the AJ-26 with the RD-181 engine, and expects the Antares to return to flight in early 2016.

SpaceX Chief Executive Elon Musk said in a July 20 briefing that the company believes a strut holding down a helium bottle with an upper stage propellant tank failed, causing the tank to overpressurize and burst. Musk said at the time that the Falcon 9 could return to flight as soon as September, but the company has not yet announced a launch date.

 

 

 http://spacenews.com/nasa-says-no-special-treatment-for-spacex-in-falcon-9-investigation/

Well...That ought to keep the "Racket Scientists" at bay for a few days............till the next diabolical plan comes to light...........

Cheers.....

[Draggendrop Veteran]

U.S. Air Force to Award Integration Studies to SpaceX

SpaceX's Falcon 9 rocket. Credit: SpaceX

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Air Force disclosed plans to award SpaceX a contract worth about $1 million to study the ins and outs of mating national security satellites to the company’s Falcon 9 rocket.

According to a justification and approval document posted to the Federal Business Opportunities website Aug. 26, the $962,000 contract would cover 10 studies as the service prepares to enter a new era of competitively awarded launch missions.

For nearly a decade, the Defense Department has relied exclusively on United Launch Alliance’s Atlas 5 and Delta 4 rockets to launch its operational military and intelligence satellites. But in May, the Air Force certified the Falcon 9 rocket to launch national security missions.

 

 

The Falcon 9 remains grounded following a June 28 failure, its first in 18 missions, but SpaceX expects to have it flying again in the coming month or two.

Air Force leaders are expected to release a final request for proposals to launch a GPS 3 navigation satellite soon. SpaceX is expected to bid on that mission, and a victory in that competition would mark its arrival as a true player in the national security launch market.

The Air Force document says additional Falcon 9-satellite integration studies could be required through fiscal year 2022 as the service completes a second round of competitively bid missions. SpaceX of Hawthorne, California, has been under contract for other integration studies with the Defense Department since at least March 2014.

Denver-based ULA has previously performed these studies on the Atlas 5 and Delta 4 rockets, the document said.

 

 http://spacenews.com/u-s-air-force-to-award-integration-studies-to-spacex/

Cheers...

[Draggendrop Veteran]

SpaceX rocket site grows

Construction set to begin this fall

BOCA CHICA — Land purchases and preparations continue in developing the world’s first commercial and vertical rocket launch site here.

Cameron County earlier this year transferred ownership of 25 lots to the Cameron County Space-port Development Corp. Those lots now have been conveyed to Elon Musk’s SpaceX.

Cameron County Judge Pete Sepulveda Jr. has said these lots are in the vicinity of the launch area and his understanding is the properties would be used to develop parking.

The Cameron County Spaceport Development Corp. transferred the lots to SpaceX July 30 for “$10 and other good and valuable consideration,” the special warranty deed filed this month states.

SpaceX recently purchased another lot in the development area on the front steps of the Cameron County Judicial Building at a property tax-delinquency public auc-tion, records show.

SpaceX now owns about 140 acres of land in the area. The purchases mostly have been made through SpaceX’s Dogleg Park LLC.

The Brownsville Navigation District, a nearby neighbor, pitched in by dedicating an additional 50 acres for SpaceX’s wet-land mitigation plan, public records show.

SpaceX, in turn, transferred, or will transfer, the land to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to mitigate impacts to wetlands.

SpaceX’s 2013 mitigation plan has gone through 10 revisions through April of this year, public records show.

SpaceX plans to launch the Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy orbital vertical rockets, which also could carry the Dragon capsule, and a variety of smaller, reusable suborbital launch vehicles from Boca Chica.

 

 http://www.valleymorningstar.com/news/local_news/article_23597364-4eb2-11e5-9057-bf743c98e894.html

Not sure if Doc reported this before, .....

FIRST PAYLOADS SCHEDULED FOR NEW TEXAS SPACEX LAUNCH SITE

Luxembourg-based satellite company SES announced a new agreement on Wednesday, Feb. 25, with Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX ) to launch two new satellites via the Hawthorne, California, firm’s Falcon 9 rocket. The payloads, SES-14 and SES-16/GovSat, are currently expected to fly in 2017. This is just the latest in a series of agreements that SpaceX has signed, placing the company on a trajectory for increased growth.

 

For the satellites themselves, according to SESSES-14, will be built by Airbus Defence and Space, and will: “fully rely on electric propulsion and will be equipped with an electric plasma propulsion system for orbit raising and in-orbit maneuvers.” Its planned orbital position will be at 47.5/48 degrees West, where it will use C-band, Ku-band and Ka-band beams to cover the Americas and the North Atlantic region with direct-to-home television signals as well as what SES calls “traffic-intensive data applications,” including mobile backhaul, maritime and aeronautical services.

The other satellite, SES-16/GovSat, was ordered by LuxGovSat, a recent partnership between the government of Luxembourg and SES itself. This satellite is to be manufactured by Orbital ATK and will use the dedicated military frequencies X-band and Ka-band from its position at 21.5 degrees East. Throughout the course of its planned 15-year mission, it is expected to cover Europe, the Middle East and Africa. While the government of Luxembourg has “pre-committed to a significant amount of capacity on the new satellite in support of its NATO obligations,” according to SES, the rest will be made commercially available for governmental and institutional customers.

“SpaceX is an important launch partner to realize our new fleet investment and growth programme,” said Martin Halliwell, chief technology officer (CTO) of SES. “With SpaceX, we share the mission of innovating the space segment and technology, achieving step changes in the design and economics of launchers, and leveraging them to the advantage of our satellites, their profile, flexibility and performance, and, above all, our customers. We are looking forward to working with the SpaceX team on these two new missions.”

 

 

Additionally, according to a report from Spaceflight Now, “Industry officials, familiar with the launch deal, said both satellites are planned to lift off from SpaceX’s new launch site at Boca Chica Beach,” though no further details or additional sources have yet emerged regarding that information.

Though these are evidently the first two payloads known to be scheduled for liftoff from the Boca Chica Beach launch site, there may be other launches from the spaceport before these. The last word on the subject from SpaceX, given at the site’s groundbreaking in September of 2014, is that the first rocket launch from the site could occur in late 2016. SpaceX CEO and founder Elon Musk also noted at that time the “significant benefit” for launching satellites to geosynchronous transfer orbit—an elliptical orbit used to help transfer satellites to geosynchronous or geostationary orbit—from the Texas-based location, as it is further south than the Florida launch site.

SES and SpaceX have had a working relationship for some time. In fact, SpaceX’s first mission to geostationary transfer orbit was in December of 2013, when they launched SES-8 aboard a Falcon 9 from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida. The next SES launch on the SpaceX manifest is the Boeing-builtSES-9, planned for some time in the second quarter of this year.

 

 http://www.spaceflightinsider.com/missions/commercial/first-payloads-scheduled-new-texas-based-spacex-launch-site/

/s....reporter...Ed the sock

Cheers......

 

 

[DocM]

SpaceX CEO Gwynne Shotwell said at #AIAA that they've selected a Falcon Return To Flight (RTF) mission but its up to the customer to announce it. She indcated a couple of months, which could mean late October or November.  It WILL be a Falcon 9 "v1.2".

She also mentioned something about interstellar propulsion being a topic around AIAA 2035.