NASASpaceFlight.com Forum

SpaceX Vehicles and Missions => SpaceX General Section => Topic started by: Norm38 on 06/26/2020 06:54 pm

Title: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: Norm38 on 06/26/2020 06:54 pm
This is why I'm souring on static fires [referring to the static fire for the Starlink v1.0 Flight 9 launch vehicle].  Two days ago [June 24] they didn't have an O2 leak, now they do.  Should have launched on Wed instead of doing the dress rehearsal.
Static fires don't prevent problems from happening later on.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: RocketLover0119 on 06/26/2020 07:01 pm
This is why I'm souring on static fires.  Two days ago they didn't have an O2 leak, now they do.  Should have launched on Wed instead of doing the dress rehearsal.
Static fires don't prevent problems from happening later on.

Think about what you just said. You have 0 idea there was a leak when they fired, it’s possible there was hence why no immediate tweet from them. Also, if they launch the leak develops in flight, and ends in a loss of mission. Static fires really do help......
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: intelati on 06/26/2020 09:57 pm
This is the third 5th launch?

I forget the exact count.

I expect to have static fires for the long life boosters. Maybe not the 2-3 launch boosters. Especially on Starlink/Rideshare missions.

Edit: Second of all time. So yeah. Two doesn't even make a pattern to go off of...

"once is happenstance twice is coincidence three times is a pattern..."
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: Norm38 on 06/26/2020 10:42 pm
This is why I'm souring on static fires.  Two days ago they didn't have an O2 leak, now they do.  Should have launched on Wed instead of doing the dress rehearsal.
Static fires don't prevent problems from happening later on.

Think about what you just said. You have 0 idea there was a leak when they fired, it’s possible there was hence why no immediate tweet from them. Also, if they launch the leak develops in flight, and ends in a loss of mission. Static fires really do help......

The opposite. I know there was no leak on Wed, else they wouldn’t have fired. You have no certainty this leak would have resulted in failure. And you can’t predict this leak. It’s the N+1 fallacy, I know.  Flip the switch N times, that means N+1 won’t fail.

No. Because I have seen test 501 fail.

There is no benefit to making N large. Only more cost and lost time.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: Lars-J on 06/26/2020 10:59 pm
This is why I'm souring on static fires.  Two days ago they didn't have an O2 leak, now they do.  Should have launched on Wed instead of doing the dress rehearsal.
Static fires don't prevent problems from happening later on.

Think about what you just said. You have 0 idea there was a leak when they fired, it’s possible there was hence why no immediate tweet from them. Also, if they launch the leak develops in flight, and ends in a loss of mission. Static fires really do help......

The opposite. I know there was no leak on Wed, else they wouldn’t have fired. You have no certainty this leak would have resulted in failure. And you can’t predict this leak. It’s the N+1 fallacy, I know.  Flip the switch N times, that means N+1 won’t fail.

No. Because I have seen test 501 fail.

There is no benefit to making N large. Only more cost and lost time.

But this wasn't test 501. Not even close...

If this was caused by a short few seconds static fire, you can bet your ass that a full launch to orbit would have caused it as well. (whether it would have been catastrophic is best to leave to SpaceX, hence the abundance of caution)

What you are advocating is the wishful thinking approach to testing, i.e "can't have test failures if you don't test". If you are afraid that adding a single additional test will break things, your system is not robust by any definition. (Of course things fail due to mechanical wear and tear, but that should occur much later)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: Norm38 on 06/27/2020 02:31 am
If you are afraid that removing a single test will miss things, your system is not robust by any definition.

The N+1 fallacy works both ways.
But entropy only moves right.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: Alexphysics on 06/27/2020 03:18 am
The opposite. I know there was no leak on Wed, else they wouldn’t have fired.

And how do you know it? Were you there to check it out yourself? Do you even know in which condition that leak developped? Was prior to firing? During the firing? After the firing? What caused it? If you have to wonder, then that's why there are static fire tests. They don't know too much about the conditions of heavily used boosters, hence why they need to static fire them otherwise they may encounter serious problems on launch day and we would be living in between constant launch scrubs (just look at how ULA does when they don't perform WDR's on their rockets for months because they just do it on the most sensitive missions and then end up having multiple scrubs for stupid things that could have been caught on a WDR).

[zubenelgenubi: Yes, this post belongs in this splinter thread.]
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: king1999 on 06/27/2020 04:51 am
If you are afraid that removing a single test will miss things, your system is not robust by any definition.

The N+1 fallacy works both ways.
But entropy only moves right.
Come on you know better. That's NOT a test. It was a WDR to shake things up for a 4 time flight old used rocket!
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: TorenAltair on 06/27/2020 08:39 am
As far as I know, the leak rumour is only based on a post in Reddit. I would be careful to take such statements for fact.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: AndrewRG10 on 06/27/2020 09:48 am
As far as I know, the leak rumour is only based on a post in Reddit. I would be careful to take such statements for fact.

A good indication of its legitimacy is that it was deleted. No idea why but SpaceX really cracks down on employees whenever they do the PR teams job of being transparent. I've seen a couple of different reddit users talk about SpaceX stuff that turns out to be true and they always delete the post and account an hour or so after posting.
It's disappointing to see SpaceX crack down on transparency but it's a good indication that it's the truth.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: tyrred on 06/27/2020 09:56 am
As far as I know, the leak rumour is only based on a post in Reddit. I would be careful to take such statements for fact.

A good indication of its legitimacy is that it was deleted. No idea why but SpaceX really cracks down on employees whenever they do the PR teams job of being transparent. I've seen a couple of different reddit users talk about SpaceX stuff that turns out to be true and they always delete the post and account an hour or so after posting.
It's disappointing to see SpaceX crack down on transparency but it's a good indication that it's the truth.

Nonsense.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: Thunderscreech on 06/27/2020 01:32 pm
A good indication of its legitimacy is that it was deleted.
If this is the criteria, then someone could first post something silly like "the static fire revealed that they had accidentally installed an MVac in one of the positions on the booster" then delete that message after a few minutes and have its subsequent legitimacy bolstered by the fact that it was deleted.

Maybe the O2 leak message was legit, maybe it wasn't, but regardless I wouldn't read too much into it being deleted as evidence for anything other than...  that it was deleted. 
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: Glorin on 06/27/2020 01:51 pm
As far as I know, the leak rumour is only based on a post in Reddit. I would be careful to take such statements for fact.

A good indication of its legitimacy is that it was deleted. No idea why but SpaceX really cracks down on employees whenever they do the PR teams job of being transparent. I've seen a couple of different reddit users talk about SpaceX stuff that turns out to be true and they always delete the post and account an hour or so after posting.
It's disappointing to see SpaceX crack down on transparency but it's a good indication that it's the truth.

Regardless of the rest, which others have addressed, I’d like to point out that “transparency” is not a requirement in any fashion, and is not even a realistic expectation. We certainly shouldn’t feel any special entitlement to additional info.

We certainly want them to relay lots of information. That’s great for us. But SpaceX is under no obligation to relay what’s going on. There are a ton of reasons they might not release information, many of them altogether boring.

Even if they do say something - perhaps the time hasn’t come yet. They’ll sometimes give a quick passing statement about issues leading to launch, during the webcast.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: Welsh Dragon on 06/27/2020 01:59 pm
So this whole thread is based on someone who may or may not be making stuff up on Reddit? Really? Come on people....
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: Norm38 on 06/27/2020 04:34 pm
If you are afraid that removing a single test will miss things, your system is not robust by any definition.

The N+1 fallacy works both ways.
But entropy only moves right.
Come on you know better. That's NOT a test. It was a WDR to shake things up for a 4 time flight old used rocket!

If static fires are being done to “shake things up” and see what comes loose, I consider that to be a problem.
The only reason to intentionally cycle a system as a test is if you know there are infant mortality failure modes to get past.  After that cycles only add stress.

But expendable rockets aren’t allowed to have infant mortality, and reusable ones aren’t either.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: king1999 on 06/27/2020 09:42 pm
If you are afraid that removing a single test will miss things, your system is not robust by any definition.

The N+1 fallacy works both ways.
But entropy only moves right.
Come on you know better. That's NOT a test. It was a WDR to shake things up for a 4 time flight old used rocket!

If static fires are being done to “shake things up” and see what comes loose, I consider that to be a problem.
The only reason to intentionally cycle a system as a test is if you know there are infant mortality failure modes to get past.  After that cycles only add stress.

But expendable rockets aren’t allowed to have infant mortality, and reusable ones aren’t either.
So after you changed the transmission or rebuilt the engine of your car, you don't want to drive around a little bit to see it is working fine before taking a long trip? No, no, "I consider that to be a problem, it will add stress to my transmission (or engine)."
So SpaceX refurbished the rocket for the fourth times, and cleaning up some components here, changing a few parts there. Don't you think it is beneficial for them to do a WDR to make sure nothing is missed in the process? I think that's common sense to me.
The MD engines are designed to work 10 flights without major maintenance. I don't think a few seconds of WDR firing would add any meaningful stress to them. If that's the case, I consider THAT to be a problem.

"Infant mortality" only applies to new rockets, and that's why some people consider F9 flights 2-3 are probably more reliable. Yes, rockets "aren't allowed" to have infant mortality, if you are the rocket God.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: quagmire on 06/28/2020 02:04 am
B1048.5 should be enough of a reason to static fire the boosters that have the most use on them right now as they gather data on how well they handle. Granted they didn't discover the root cause of the issue until the actual flight, but they had an issue with it during the static fire which caused the launch to slip, then the launch was aborted at T-0 at ignition due to an engine reading out of limits. Then the actual launch had the engine cut out early. Now it is only speculation that all three events are related to the same engine, but at least the static fire revealed an issue.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: AndrewRG10 on 06/28/2020 02:23 am
Regardless of the rest, which others have addressed, I’d like to point out that “transparency” is not a requirement in any fashion, and is not even a realistic expectation. We certainly shouldn’t feel any special entitlement to additional info.

We certainly want them to relay lots of information. That’s great for us. But SpaceX is under no obligation to relay what’s going on. There are a ton of reasons they might not release information, many of them altogether boring.

Even if they do say something - perhaps the time hasn’t come yet. They’ll sometimes give a quick passing statement about issues leading to launch, during the webcast.

Oh yeh by no means is SpaceX or anyone obligated to tell what they're doing. They don't even have to do a webcast. They're definitely one of the more open, if not the most open aerospace corporations. However, if you want to call yourself a transparent company, you better live up to that by telling about why things are delayed, don't ignore a landing failure for several weeks or pretend the fairing catch attempt never happened when it splashed down.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: king1999 on 06/28/2020 06:03 pm
Oh yeh by no means is SpaceX or anyone obligated to tell what they're doing. They don't even have to do a webcast. They're definitely one of the more open, if not the most open aerospace corporations. However, if you want to call yourself a transparent company, you better live up to that by telling about why things are delayed, don't ignore a landing failure for several weeks or pretend the fairing catch attempt never happened when it splashed down.
I don't recall SpaceX ever called themselves "transparent" or something like that. They are just doing their best and disclose enough to keep the public interested in space, which is in their own interest to make public opinions sway in their favor policy directions of the US Congress or Administration. People calling them "transparent" is comparative to other space companies like Blue Origin or ULA. And I don't think disclosing too much is in their interest considering all the competitors and other countries like China.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: Norm38 on 06/28/2020 09:27 pm
So SpaceX refurbished the rocket for the fourth times, and cleaning up some components here, changing a few parts there. Don't you think it is beneficial for them to do a WDR to make sure nothing is missed in the process? I think that's common sense to me.
The MD engines are designed to work 10 flights without major maintenance. I don't think a few seconds of WDR firing would add any meaningful stress to them. If that's the case, I consider THAT to be a problem.

Is cleaning defined as “major maintenance”?  You do have a valid point, they did just have an issue due to cleaning fluid, so maybe they’re back to regular static fires until they work that out. 
But long term they should not need to fire if they didn’t do “major” work or replace engines.
It’s all about not doing harm.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: ulm_atms on 06/28/2020 09:48 pm
If static fires are being done to “shake things up” and see what comes loose, I consider that to be a problem.
The only reason to intentionally cycle a system as a test is if you know there are infant mortality failure modes to get past.  After that cycles only add stress.

But expendable rockets aren’t allowed to have infant mortality, and reusable ones aren’t either.

You want it to shake loose on the way up?  :o  Kidding slightly...

This is new reuse territory for them...let them test.  If something does break on a static test fire...it could easily break on the way up.  Let them test, if it breaks, figure it out and roll that change down the line so it doesn't happen again.  rinse/repeat.  I would be more worried if they started cowboying this and crossed their fingers each time it lights.  Although they are planning for 10 reuse...they haven't gotten there yet...1/2 way at this point.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: Coastal Ron on 06/28/2020 10:31 pm
If you are afraid that removing a single test will miss things, your system is not robust by any definition.

The N+1 fallacy works both ways.
But entropy only moves right.
Come on you know better. That's NOT a test. It was a WDR to shake things up for a 4 time flight old used rocket!

If static fires are being done to “shake things up” and see what comes loose, I consider that to be a problem.

Static fires are done to gather data, though we obviously have no idea what the specific type of data is, or what trend they are looking at.

Quote
The only reason to intentionally cycle a system as a test is if you know there are infant mortality failure modes to get past.

Infant mortality is for finding issues with something new. SpaceX routinely does static fires for not only new stages, but previously flown stages too, so that tells me that they are doing it for reasons OTHER THAN finding infant mortality.

Quote
After that cycles only add stress.

And provide data. Again, we have no idea what data they are gathering, or for what purpose, since they have only recently started attempting launches without static fires, that should tell us that the time and money it takes to do them have been worthwhile so far. Us in the public not understand it's value doesn't mean SpaceX is wrong...  ;)

Quote
But expendable rockets aren’t allowed to have infant mortality, and reusable ones aren’t either.

Launch service providers can't provide their service unless their rockets do what they are supposed to do, so SpaceX must have a good reason why they have not eliminated static fires yet. And we know from Shotwell and Musk that they have been planning on reducing/eliminating static fires at some point in the future, so apparently we are seeing them working on doing that.

My $0.02
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: thirtyone on 06/29/2020 12:15 am
In many high end, lower volume product spaces, testing is often the difference between a poorly made product and a well made product. No matter what you do, yield is never 100% and rarely even close. Testing is what makes most products even decently acceptable. So I would *really* be careful before anyone insists that "less testing should be done." Sounds like a potential recipe for disaster.

However, it is very possible that testing causes more stress than detects issues. I doubt anyone other than SpaceX has the expertise or experience to answer the question of "how much testing do you need to do on a kerolox engine to refurb it for reflight without risking more damage from the test?"

I'm going to guess from my armchair anyway, because I guess that's the point of this forum. I think I heard this from a talk from Tom Mueller - kerosene is sooty, so they actually need to do pretty thorough cleaning after a launch if they want to maintain engine performance on subsequent launches. This is actually why they were pushing IPA through the system (the stuff that got trapped in a sensor dead leg and caused an engine-out on one of the recent launches). I can imagine that if some of the soot isn't cleaned evenly - say on a turbine blade - this could cause complex vibration issues that maybe wouldn't be detectable until a full firing of the engine in-place. I'm making this speculation based on a scene from a NatGeo SpaceX documentary ("MARS: Inside SpaceX") in the control room during a static fire, where one of the engineers says "Five hertz is where we're likely, just in bad territory" for the first FH launch, making me suspect that vibrational modes are at least one critical issue they're looking out for. Remember that the two side boosters were reused for the maiden launch.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: Coastal Ron on 06/30/2020 02:35 am
In many high end, lower volume product spaces, testing is often the difference between a poorly made product and a well made product. No matter what you do, yield is never 100% and rarely even close. Testing is what makes most products even decently acceptable. So I would *really* be careful before anyone insists that "less testing should be done." Sounds like a potential recipe for disaster.

I have been in manufacturing operations for both low volume DoD products, and high volume consumer products. And in my role I've always worked with both Quality Control (QC) and Quality Assurance (QA), since I have needed to know when they found problems so that I would know if that was going to affect the product schedule (usually my area of responsibility). Just so you know my perspective here.

When you are developing a product, of any type, you do testing to validate your design and to see what the failure envelope is. Knowing what has the potential to fail informs what you will need to test in the production process, both during assembly and when the product is fully assembled and functional.

Back in the 70's American car companies would use their QC department to find problems at the end of the assembly process so that they could route the cars to a rework process. At the same time, in Japan their car companies had embraced the teachings of W. Edwards Deming (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Edwards_Deming), who gave talks on "Statistical Product Quality Administration". Their production processes relied on the production line workers finding problems, and when they did they stopped the production line to fix the problem. That has now become the way that most manufacturers make product.

The bottom line is that manufacturing organizations today know that you can't inspect quality into a product, you have to build it in. So testing is the validation of everything that you have done, and it is part of your validation process.

Quote
However, it is very possible that testing causes more stress than detects issues. I doubt anyone other than SpaceX has the expertise or experience to answer the question of "how much testing do you need to do on a kerolox engine to refurb it for reflight without risking more damage from the test?"

For electronics it is usually not an issue. Normally for rocket engines there would be a finite number of test firings you could do on an engine that was built to be expendable, but the Merlin engine is built to be reusable.

Elon Musk had talked in the past about SpaceX wanting to reduce the turnaround time for a reusable Falcon 9 to 24 hours. They may not have a business reason for doing that today, but static fires do cost money (and time), so it would behoove them to evaluate if static fires are really necessary before every launch. And since we know they gather lots of data about engine performance with each launch, they are in a good position to test out the need for static fires on their own launches (i.e. Starlink).

My $0.02
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: intelati on 06/30/2020 02:03 pm
The way I see it in this case:

1. You're launching your own product. You're not going to affect anyone else for messing up the launch. (in cases <3 previous launches) You already have 10*10 data points to know what's going to happen.
2. For the life leaders, continue testing until you are comfortable with the sample size (This is literally the second time a rocket has been launched five times)

Pretty simple to me.

For other customers, the logic may vary.

I see them continuing to static fire for new boosters until the demise of the Falcon program.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: Lars-J on 06/30/2020 09:20 pm
The way I see it in this case:

1. You're launching your own product. You're not going to affect anyone else for messing up the launch. (in cases <3 previous launches) You already have 10*10 data points to know what's going to happen.

That is objectively wrong. NASA is relying on F9 to fly humans, and the DoD is relying on it for national security payloads. They will definitely care if a F9 fails during reuse. (As will other customers)

All this while you are trying to convince the industry that reused stages are as good as new. So it is not that simple. SpaceX will never launch a reused F9 if it is not VERY confident it will succeed. So testing continue to be important.
(But then again static fires are just one of the ways they test... so they may eventually go away...)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 08/11/2020 03:36 am
OK, it's that time again...Static Fire or no Static Fire for the Falcon 9 launching Starlink v1.0 Flight 10?
It is the first time a first stage will be launched for a sixth time.

EDIT: See L2.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: intelati on 08/11/2020 06:34 pm
OK, it's that time again...Static Fire or no Static Fire for the Falcon 9 launching Starlink v1.0 Flight 10?
It is the first time a first stage will be launched for a sixth time.

EDIT: See L2.

I don't see how they don't SF. It's the first time ever someone has attempted to reuse the booster for the sixth time.

Easy money on a SF
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: mulp on 08/12/2020 11:05 am
The static fire is not just about the engine firing.

It cycles through the entire launch including abort for any reason, eg weather, sensor error, mechanical failure, engine start error, ....

For the crew launch, they rehearsed how many times, with and without fuel load?

While the crew at the pad and the control room are fairly constant, they are not launching frequently enough to not need a full crew rehearsal just before launch. Checklists are critical when doing the same thing over and over, ie taking off and landing planes. That makes up for not doing practice specifically for the activity.

To not rehearse a launch is like not rehearsing for the Superbowl.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: ZachS09 on 08/12/2020 12:29 pm
Even though the first launch attempt of Demo-2 was scrubbed, there were some out there who compared it to a Wet Dress Rehearsal with crew onboard.

It was something SpaceX didn't have to do before the real deal.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: Nomadd on 08/12/2020 04:35 pm
 All these arguments for static fires, and I don't see an answer to the one thing that confuses me. Why is it impossible for all the factors they look at to be automatically evaluated by computer in the second between ignition and liftoff? To paraphrase Data, a second is a very long time for a computer.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: wannamoonbase on 08/12/2020 04:38 pm
We don't know what problems they find testing the boosters in McGregor.  Perhaps they are finding and correcting things all the time that we never hear about.

However, I think there could be a case made for having boosters skip the tests in McGregor and go straight to the launch pad.  Use the static fire to indicate vehicle health before launching.

Then of course you could use starting the engines for the actual launch as a computer controlled static fire.

SpaceX collects a ton of data, so I'm sure their decisions will be data driven.  They will drop, or test dropping, some of these activities, when the data tells them.

As an aside, I use to work in electronics manufacturing, our products got good enough at one point where the testing of the product caused more problems than it was finding. 
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: Tulse on 08/12/2020 05:37 pm
However, I think there could be a case made for having boosters skip the tests in McGregor and go straight to the launch pad.  Use the static fire to indicate vehicle health before launching.
I think it would make more sense the other way around -- do the testing at McGregor and skip the static fires. If one detected a problem at McGregor one could potentially swap out engines or roll out another booster with minimal launch delay, whereas if a problem is found when everything is stacked and on the launch pad, rectifying things could take far more time.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: Lars-J on 08/12/2020 08:38 pm
All these arguments for static fires, and I don't see an answer to the one thing that confuses me. Why is it impossible for all the factors they look at to be automatically evaluated by computer in the second between ignition and liftoff? To paraphrase Data, a second is a very long time for a computer.

Would you rather find out about engine issues at the scheduled launch time, or a few days earlier? Doing the extra (scheduled) test helps improve overall launch schedule assurance. SpaceX has had remarkably few countdown/liftoff aborts for technical reasons in the last few years, and I believe the static fires are a significant factor in that.

Also running the engines for a few seconds (vs just starting them) will give the entire rocket a good shake. In case anything is loose...  :)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: whitelancer64 on 08/12/2020 09:21 pm
All these arguments for static fires, and I don't see an answer to the one thing that confuses me. Why is it impossible for all the factors they look at to be automatically evaluated by computer in the second between ignition and liftoff? To paraphrase Data, a second is a very long time for a computer.

It isn't impossible. The computers on-board the Falcon 9 fully control the launch from T-60 or so, IIRC. There have been a few aborts after engine start-up.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: meekGee on 08/13/2020 05:09 pm
All these arguments for static fires, and I don't see an answer to the one thing that confuses me. Why is it impossible for all the factors they look at to be automatically evaluated by computer in the second between ignition and liftoff? To paraphrase Data, a second is a very long time for a computer.
I think some of the data may not be black and white but result in a desire to inspect something..  so you'd rather do it before the launch window.

The assumption is that if you got through that, the odds of another issue cropping up at launch are lower.

I think what will allow them to eventually drop SFs is when they can use data from the previous flight as a proxy for the SF.  For this to become the norm requires that they be comfortable with very used boosters, and this will happen, I predict, exactly when SS starts flying and taking over.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: ChrML on 08/13/2020 08:00 pm
All these arguments for static fires, and I don't see an answer to the one thing that confuses me. Why is it impossible for all the factors they look at to be automatically evaluated by computer in the second between ignition and liftoff? To paraphrase Data, a second is a very long time for a computer.
Most likely, however range availability and weather are pretty significant constraints these days. Probably costs a lot of money too to book the range.

It'd be bad to waste a launch opportunity because a sensor has issues, and you could've found that issue a few days before, fixed it and launched on time.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: dondar on 08/13/2020 08:11 pm
All these arguments for static fires, and I don't see an answer to the one thing that confuses me. Why is it impossible for all the factors they look at to be automatically evaluated by computer in the second between ignition and liftoff? To paraphrase Data, a second is a very long time for a computer.
they do it actually (Shuttle, Delta IV, Electron all had at least one such abort). That is why all other companies don't do static fire.
I believe the main reason of SpaceX static fires is rehearsal. Banal training and getting into "the mood".
The static fire is not that expensive (all other companies do pref-light testing anyway and time-money costs are of a similar value).

To TL/DR this and many/many other questions: by all accounts SpaceX is designed and managed by engineer fanatics with engineer fanatics in mind. Everything they do fit this paradigm very tightly.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: jrhan48 on 08/13/2020 10:13 pm
All these arguments for static fires, and I don't see an answer to the one thing that confuses me. Why is it impossible for all the factors they look at to be automatically evaluated by computer in the second between ignition and liftoff? To paraphrase Data, a second is a very long time for a computer.
they do it actually (Shuttle, Delta IV, Electron all had at least one such abort). That is why all other companies don't do static fire.
I believe the main reason of SpaceX static fires is rehearsal. Banal training and getting into "the mood".
The static fire is not that expensive (all other companies do pref-light testing anyway and time-money costs are of a similar value).

To TL/DR this and many/many other questions: by all accounts SpaceX is designed and managed by engineer fanatics with engineer fanatics in mind. Everything they do fit this paradigm very tightly.

IMHO with respect to Static Firing, in systems there is something called "emergent behavior" where the sum is greater than the parts. One needs to run the system as a system, fully to exercise these behaviors, and the interesting part is that emergent behaviors are not all good, failures can be "emergent" as well.  Others have cited vibration and I am sure they look at the mechanical spectrum, but also a critical issue that can only be evaluated during a static fire is acoustic signatures.  SpaceX will have very good data on the acoustic signature of a good rocket, and any deviation from that signature will signify a potential problem. The sound turns out to be one of the best predictors of good health and one of the earliest indicators of a pending failure.  Certainly, with Raptor's we heard bad things sometimes before one sees bad things.   So getting an acoustic signature would be one of the things I as a systems engineer would be looking for.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: mulp on 08/16/2020 02:32 pm
Why isn't it everything before and after lighting and shutting down the engines?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 08/17/2020 10:39 am
OK, it's that time again...Static Fire or no Static Fire for the Falcon 9 launching Starlink v1.0 Flight 10?
It is the first time a first stage will be launched for a sixth time.

EDIT: See L2.
Static Fire at 6:00 am EDT, Monday, August 17. (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=51258.msg2121032#msg2121032)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: dondar on 08/18/2020 09:00 am
All these arguments for static fires, and I don't see an answer to the one thing that confuses me. Why is it impossible for all the factors they look at to be automatically evaluated by computer in the second between ignition and liftoff? To paraphrase Data, a second is a very long time for a computer.
they do it actually (Shuttle, Delta IV, Electron all had at least one such abort). That is why all other companies don't do static fire.
I believe the main reason of SpaceX static fires is rehearsal. Banal training and getting into "the mood".
The static fire is not that expensive (all other companies do pref-light testing anyway and time-money costs are of a similar value).

To TL/DR this and many/many other questions: by all accounts SpaceX is designed and managed by engineer fanatics with engineer fanatics in mind. Everything they do fit this paradigm very tightly.

IMHO with respect to Static Firing, in systems there is something called "emergent behavior" where the sum is greater than the parts. One needs to run the system as a system, fully to exercise these behaviors, and the interesting part is that emergent behaviors are not all good, failures can be "emergent" as well.  Others have cited vibration and I am sure they look at the mechanical spectrum, but also a critical issue that can only be evaluated during a static fire is acoustic signatures.  SpaceX will have very good data on the acoustic signature of a good rocket, and any deviation from that signature will signify a potential problem. The sound turns out to be one of the best predictors of good health and one of the earliest indicators of a pending failure.  Certainly, with Raptor's we heard bad things sometimes before one sees bad things.   So getting an acoustic signature would be one of the things I as a systems engineer would be looking for.
Pfff.
All modern systems Falcon included can stop launching procedure after engine start-up and before take-off. The platforms I've mentioned had such aborts (the information is readily available online).
 They don't test "acoustic signature" per se.
More of it the important acoustic signatures happen only in flight (that is why they monitor max Q point). During start up sequence the acoustic situation is hap-hazardous and there is nothing to measure against.
 It was the case for small rockets, it should be even worse for these giants screened by walls of falling water.

They follow launching check-lists and enjoy extra possibility to do everything right without pressure of the launching "book-keeping", they get a chance to practice and to say easier hearten "Go" for launch (which used to be a big deal and apparently is a big deal in SpaceX).
I remind that re-usability is amazing gift which gave these engineers rare opportunity to see their rockets after flight and translate their "assumptions" into "knowledge". Static fire is another "smaller gift" translating "anticipation" into "expectation".

This explanation is given by the test engineer who did his rounds from 60 till 80s.

While Musk will be the "chief engineer" they will keep doing normal engineering thingies. "Test as you fly", "practice regularly" etc.etc. etc. and the rest will or envy or bitch around...
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 08/19/2020 12:26 am
FYI re: SAOCOM 1B Static Fire:
Also, a reminder about the upcoming Static Fire--if the information is still correct, then Static Fire will be on August 22.
I followed the story on the web: https://bit.ly/EquiposSAOCOM

The article has some good info

Quote
Five days before launch, the Argentine and SpaceX engineers will conduct a second procedural test, which this time will include the launcher and the satellite.

Are they saying they're going to do the static fire with payload attached?

As far as I know, yes, this is the case. We'll use this test as the last rehearsal before the launch.

PS: I was surprised, too. I thought they stopped doing static fires with the payload attached after AMOS-6.

They did, but it has technically always been up to the customer to have the payload on or not. NASA allowed the DM-1 Dragon to be on the booster for the static fire. Several (all? I haven't been keeping track) of the Starlink static fires have had the Starlinks on top.
DM 1 and 2 were left on the vehicle because it contained an escape system. Starlink is SpaceX owned...it was their choice to leave it intact for the static firing.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 08/22/2020 05:50 am
Cross-post:
Finally, the last test/rehearsal for SAOCOM-1B before launch won't be simultaneous to the static fire, so it will probably be a "regular" SF (no payload attached).
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 08/22/2020 05:50 am
An "internal" payload (Starlink), and launch on a once-used first stage.

Could this launch go forward with no Static Fire?
EDIT August 21: Thinking further, Falcon 9 no longer needs range radar to determine if a flight deviation has reached the limits of triggering the destruct package--it's autonomous via GPS use.  Therefore, there's no need to await a range reset of such between launches.

This launch could be as soon as August 28!  That depends on the two previous launches being on-time and successful.

Three launches in three days?!
Scheduled:
Date - Satellite(s) - Rocket - Launch Site - Time (UTC)

2020
August 26 - NROL-44: Orion 10 (Mentor 8 ) (TBD) - Delta IV-H [D-385] - Canaveral SLC-37B - 06:16-10:25
August 27 - SAOCOM-1B, Capella 2 (Sequoia), GNOMES-1 - Falcon 9-092 (B1059.4 L) - Canaveral SLC-40 - 23:19
NET August 28?  Late August  September - Starlink flight 12 (x60) [v1.0 L11] - Falcon 9 (1060.2 S) - Kennedy LC-39A  / Canaveral SLC-40

Changes on August 20th
zubenelgenubi August 21
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: intelati on 08/24/2020 01:12 pm
An "internal" payload (Starlink), and launch on a once-used first stage.

Could this launch go forward with no Static Fire?
EDIT August 21: Thinking further, Falcon 9 no longer needs range radar to determine if a flight deviation has reached the limits of triggering the destruct package--it's autonomous via GPS use.  Therefore, there's no need to await a range reset of such between launches.

This launch could be as soon as August 28!  That depends on the two previous launches being on-time and successful.

Three launches in three days?!

Wouldn't be surprised if they don't.

For SpaceX, I'm sure they have a large enough sample to proceed to launch without a SF.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 08/27/2020 05:06 am
Cross-post:
Finally, the last test/rehearsal for SAOCOM-1B before launch won't be simultaneous to the static fire, so it will probably be a "regular" SF (no payload attached).
Transfer of the Falcon 9 to the pad and Static Fire should be next.
Noting as of now: We're less than 43 hours from launch and there is no outward sign reported of an impending Static Fire, with or without payload.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 09/02/2020 05:26 pm
Cross-post:
Finally, the last test/rehearsal for SAOCOM-1B before launch won't be simultaneous to the static fire, so it will probably be a "regular" SF (no payload attached).
Transfer of the Falcon 9 to the pad and Static Fire should be next.
Noting as of now: We're less than 43 hours from launch and there is no outward sign reported of an impending Static Fire, with or without payload.
SAOCOM-1B launched with no Static Fire.
***

Re: Starlink v1.0 Flight 12:
An "internal" payload (Starlink), and launch on a once-used first stage.

Could this launch go forward with no Static Fire?
Yes, no Static Fire scheduled before September 3 launch.
EDIT: No Static Fire before the September 3 launch.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: Norm38 on 09/08/2020 04:25 am
Glad to see they got there.  A huge step towards rapid reuse.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: Eka on 09/08/2020 04:56 am
As far as I know, the leak rumour is only based on a post in Reddit. I would be careful to take such statements for fact.

A good indication of its legitimacy is that it was deleted.
So now I know how to fool you.
No idea why but SpaceX really cracks down on employees whenever they do the PR teams job of being transparent. I've seen a couple of different reddit users talk about SpaceX stuff that turns out to be true and they always delete the post and account an hour or so after posting.
It's disappointing to see SpaceX crack down on transparency but it's a good indication that it's the truth.
All SpaceX employees have NDAs in their employment contracts. This is important because of ITAR related stuff, as well as company secrets. My guess is those posts were in violation of the NDA, and part of the remedy to keep working for SpaceX was to delete the posts and account. As a company that deals with ITAR related stuff, they can't take it lightly and let some slip.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 09/15/2020 02:01 pm
It's a few hours over 2 days from the September 17 Falcon 9/Starlink launch, third launch for B1058.
No indications of a Static Fire.

EDIT September 17: Falcon 9 rolled to pad "day of" launch.  (Launch scrubbed today.)
***

The late September launch of Falcon 9/Starlink will be the sixth launch of B1051.  Will there be a Static Fire?  The previous, and first, sixth use of a first stage was Static Fired (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=51340.msg2121036#msg2121036).
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: intelati on 09/15/2020 02:15 pm
It's a few hours over 2 days from the September 17 Falcon 9/Starlink launch, third launch for B1058.
No indications of a Static Fire.

The late September launch of Falcon 9/Starlink will be the sixth launch of B1051.  Will there be a Static Fire?  The previous, and first, sixth use of a first stage was Static Fired (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=51340.msg2121036#msg2121036).

I can see another SF for the sixth launch... More data. Once they have launched it a couple times, I can see them stopping SF for the 6th flights.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 09/25/2020 08:17 pm
It's a few hours over 2 days from the September 17 Falcon 9/Starlink launch, third launch for B1058.
No indications of a Static Fire.

EDIT September 17: Falcon 9 rolled to pad "day of" launch.  (Launch scrubbed today.)
Launch campaign towards a September 27 28 launch apparently includes no Static Fire.
***

GPS III-4 LV is new; Static Fire occurred today at 06:00 EDT. (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=47032.msg2135997#msg2135997)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 10/19/2020 09:01 am
It's a few hours over 2 days from the September 17 Starlink v1.0 Flight 12/Falcon 9 launch, third launch for B1058.
No indications of a Static Fire.

EDIT September 17: Falcon 9 rolled to pad "day of" launch.  (Launch scrubbed today.)
Launch campaign towards a September 27 28 launch apparently includes no Static Fire.
Launch finally occurred on October 6; no Static Fire preceding.
***

Starlink v1.0 Flight 13 Static Fire on October 17, followed by launch on October 18 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=51858.msg2143364#msg2143364), the sixth launch of B1051.
***

Will there be a Static Fire of B1060.3 before the Starlink v1.0 Flight 14 launch on October 21?

My deduction is no: It's flown two times before--look at the SpaceX Static Fire/no Static Fire track record this year.
Also, this flight is for an "internal" customer.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 10/21/2020 05:22 pm
Will there be a Static Fire of B1060.3 before the Starlink v1.0 Flight 14 launch on October 21?

My deduction is no: It's flown two times before--look at the SpaceX Static Fire/no Static Fire track record this year.
Also, this flight is for an "internal" customer.

The answer is yes!  Static Fire occurred today circa 1600 UTC. (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=52098.msg2144978#msg2144978)  Launch currently scheduled for October 22.

EDIT: Successful launch October 24.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 10/22/2020 03:09 am
GPS III-4 LV is new; Static Fire occurred September 25 at 06:00 EDT. (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=47032.msg2135997#msg2135997)
Another Static Fire is expected after the engine removal and replacement, and before launch.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: Norm38 on 10/22/2020 10:39 pm
Was there a static fire test?
Not required for internal payloads on a flown booster. Flight by flight determination for flown boosters. All maiden flight boosters are subject to the customary static fire at McGregor and the Flight Readiness Firing (Static Fire) at their assigned pad for that launch. The plan is to phase pad FRF SF's out and only be required to the Quality Assurance Verification Static Fire at McGregor for new boosters. If flight rate stays strong it negates most of the need for the FRF to verify pad systems through ignition sequence post start with shutdown.


I like the logic of this post.  Not sure if this is official SpaceX policy, but I agree with the approach.

But given the engine swaps that were just announced, I expect static fires to be standard practice again for a while.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 10/25/2020 12:32 am
Open question: Will SpaceX perform a Static Fire on the 1st stage for NROL-108?  What does the "customer" want?
Lack of data: We don't know exactly when the launch is, and we don't know which (used) stage it will be. ;D
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 11/05/2020 12:06 am
GPS III-4 LV is new; Static Fire occurred September 25 at 06:00 EDT. (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=47032.msg2135997#msg2135997)
Another Static Fire is expected after the engine removal and replacement, and before launch.

Successful Static Fire on October 31 EDT.
https://twitter.com/spacex/status/1322702955007541249
Quote
Static fire test complete – targeting Thursday, November 5 for Falcon 9 launch of GPS III-4 from SLC-40
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 11/05/2020 12:13 am
Re: Crew-1:
My notes that I took during the press conference, much of this is scattered through the above tweets.
<snip>
Static fire on [November] the 9th.
<snip>
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 11/08/2020 06:43 pm
Re: Crew-1 Static Fire:
Quote from: Tweet
NASA's @Astro_illini says the agency is monitoring the weather forecast and that it "potentially is going to have an impact" on the Crew-1 launch date.

"I think we've moved the static fire" from Monday [November 9] to Tuesday [November 10] "because of the weather conditions."  [They did.]
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 11/12/2020 01:31 am
Re: Crew-1 Static Fire:
Quote from: Tweet
NASA's @Astro_illini says the agency is monitoring the weather forecast and that it "potentially is going to have an impact" on the Crew-1 launch date.

"I think we've moved the static fire" from Monday [November 9] to Tuesday [November 10] "because of the weather conditions."  [They did.]
Successful Static Fire on November 11. (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=50525.msg2152558#msg2152558)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 11/13/2020 11:11 pm
Open question: Will SpaceX perform a Static Fire on the 1st stage for NROL-108?  What does the "customer" want?
Lack of data: We don't know exactly when the launch is, and we don't know which (used) stage it will be. ;D
NET November 18, CCAFS SLC-40, B1059.5

Cross-post:
NextSpaceflight says the booster will be B1059.5. Meaning B1059 is the first time a booster does three RTLS (also all RTLS's this year were B1059) and first time a external customer uses a fifth flight booster.
https://nextspaceflight.com/launches/details/5112

NET date and location (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=52045.msg2148371#msg2148371)

EDIT: Launch delayed into December. (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=52045.msg2153802#msg2153802)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 11/13/2020 11:22 pm
When will be the Static Fire of B1063.1, Vandenberg AFB, for Sentinel-6A?:
My bold; Static Fire?
From sentinel6.blog
Quote
<snip>
Preparations were underway for the rehearsals of the satellite on on Thursday and the launcher on Friday [November 13].
<snip>
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 11/17/2020 10:28 pm
When will be the Static Fire of B1063.1, Vandenberg AFB, for Sentinel-6A?:
November 17!
https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1328779234945478663
Quote
Static fire test complete – targeting Saturday, November 21 for Falcon 9 launch of the Sentinel-6 Michael Freilich mission and landing at SLC-4 at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 11/18/2020 01:15 am
Starting here (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=52101.msg2154388#msg2154388), we have the data for the Starlink v1.0 Flight 15 launch: Date, time, launch location, and LV first stage.

As this will be 1049's seventh use, we assume that there will be a Static Fire.  The payload is Starlink satellites, an "internal" customer, so SpaceX will likely choose to do so with the payloads and fairing atop the LV.  The vehicle may be rolled out and erected at SLC-40, before Static Fire and launch, as late as a day or two before launch.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 11/20/2020 03:57 pm
Re: Static Fire, Starlink v1.0 Flight 15:
Quote from: Tweet
Looks like the static fire may have been aborted. We did not see any action at 1:30 a.m. [November 20] Eastern as expected.
***

Static Fire at 4:00 pm EST, November 21. (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=52101.msg2157100#msg2157100)

https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1330277683234746368
Quote
Static fire test complete – targeting Falcon 9 launch of Starlink from SLC-40 in Florida on Sunday, November 22.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 11/25/2020 06:24 am
Dragon SpX-21 currently scheduled to launch from KSC LC-39A on December 5 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=51769.msg2157751#msg2157751), on first stage 1058.4.
Static Fire before launch, or no Static Fire?
My opinion:  Expect a Static Fire, as this is a NASA and ISS support payload, but without Dragon attached.
Thus, roll-out for Static Fire, followed by return to the LC-39A HIF for Dragon late load on the pad for Dragon attachment, then a return to the pad for launch.

ADD: Static Fire scheduled for morning Thursday, December 3 EST (local time). (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=51769.msg2161391#msg2161391)

and EDITS
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 12/01/2020 08:11 pm
SXM-7 launching to GTO on December 10 from SLC-40 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=46524.msg2160748#msg2160748), aboard Falcon 9 first stage 1051.7 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=46524.msg2160766#msg2160766).  This is the second booster to reach a seventh flight.

My opinion:  Rocket will transport to pad for Static Fire, without the payload or payload fairing.
Upon successful completion, rocket returns to HIF for payload attachment.
Return to pad for launch.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: Joffan on 12/03/2020 01:17 pm
Dragon SpX-21 currently scheduled to launch from KSC LC-39A on December 5 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=51769.msg2157751#msg2157751), on first stage 1058.4.
Static Fire before launch, or no Static Fire?
My opinion:  Expect a Static Fire, as this is a NASA and ISS support payload, but without Dragon attached.
Thus, roll-out for Static Fire, return to the LC-39A HIF for Dragon late load for Dragon attachment, then a return to the pad for launch.

EDIT: Static Fire scheduled for morning Thursday, December 3 EST (local time). (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=51769.msg2161391#msg2161391)

I believe that late load can be undertaken via the crew access arm, on the pad & vertical.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 12/03/2020 03:35 pm
Dragon SpX-21 currently scheduled to launch from KSC LC-39A on December 5 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=51769.msg2157751#msg2157751), on first stage 1058.4.
Static Fire before launch, or no Static Fire?
My opinion:  Expect a Static Fire, as this is a NASA and ISS support payload, with Dragon attached.

EDIT: Static Fire scheduled for morning Thursday, December 3 EST (local time). (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=51769.msg2161391#msg2161391)

Cross-post:
https://twitter.com/spacex/status/1334502616374550529

Quote
Static fire test complete — targeting December 5 for Falcon 9 launch of Dragon’s 21st resupply mission to the @space_station; team is keeping an eye on weather conditions as the forecast is currently 40% favorable for liftoff
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 12/03/2020 05:59 pm
I believe that late load can be undertaken via the crew access arm, on the pad & vertical.
Yes!
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=51769.msg2161700#msg2161700
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 12/05/2020 02:58 am
Open question: Will SpaceX perform a Static Fire on the 1st stage for NROL-108?  What does the "customer" want?
Cross-post:
NextSpaceflight says the booster will be B1059.5. Meaning B1059 is the first time a booster does three RTLS (also all RTLS's this year were B1059) and first time a external customer uses a fifth flight booster.
https://nextspaceflight.com/launches/details/5112

Launch NET December 17, from KSC LC-39A, still B1059.5. (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=52045.msg2162207#msg2162207)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 12/08/2020 03:20 am
SXM-7 launching to GTO on December 10 from SLC-40 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=46524.msg2160748#msg2160748), aboard Falcon 9 first stage 1051.7 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=46524.msg2160766#msg2160766).  This is the second booster to reach a seventh flight.

My opinion:  Rocket will transport to pad for Static Fire, without the payload or payload fairing.
Upon successful completion, rocket returns to HIF for payload attachment.
Return to pad for launch.

Successful Static Fire, December 7 1800 EST.
https://twitter.com/nasaspaceflight/status/1336083637935214595

Quote
Static Fire conducted. As always, wait for SpaceX to confirm a good test and the launch date (NROL-44 also on the Range).

Caught via FleetCam at Port Canaveral.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 12/16/2020 03:39 pm
Open question: Will SpaceX perform a Static Fire on the 1st stage for NROL-108?  What does the "customer" want?
Cross-post:
NextSpaceflight says the booster will be B1059.5. Meaning B1059 is the first time a booster does three RTLS (also all RTLS's this year were B1059) and first time a external customer uses a fifth flight booster.
https://nextspaceflight.com/launches/details/5112

Launch NET December 17, from KSC LC-39A, still B1059.5. (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=52045.msg2162207#msg2162207)

Cross-post; roll-out circa 24 hours before launch; probably means no Static Fire.
https://twitter.com/emrekelly/status/1339221785057894400

Quote
Falcon 9 / NROL-108 is rolling out to pad 39A in advance of Thursday's planned 0900 to 1200 ET liftoff. Nice photobomb courtesy of a KSC crawler.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: Joffan on 12/19/2020 05:02 pm
I'm pretty surprised by no static fire for a NRO launch on a used booster. SpaceX must have made a convincing case with their data.

This suggests to me that future static fires for used boosters might only be for cases when the previous flight data had a few peculiarities, and/or they've changed out some major components.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 12/20/2020 11:58 am
Booster 1060.4 for Turksat 5A. (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=44188.msg2163787#msg2163787)  Launch currently scheduled for January 5 UTC, SLC-40.

Will SpaceX perform a Static Fire?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: Jansen on 12/20/2020 12:23 pm
I'm pretty surprised by no static fire for a NRO launch on a used booster. SpaceX must have made a convincing case with their data.

This suggests to me that future static fires for used boosters might only be for cases when the previous flight data had a few peculiarities, and/or they've changed out some major components.

This launch was unusual in that it was a commercial launch contract, not under NSSL. NRO wanted this bird up quickly, even opting for LC-39A vs the more secure SLC-40.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: rsdavis9 on 12/21/2020 01:49 pm
Could it be that for a used booster a static fire REDUCES the success probability.
Being a customer what would you rather have:
1. Loads of performance data from a successful lauch for the full engine runtime.
2. A 2 sec static fire. Possibly the short duration could break something and without the full duration you will miss it.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: Jansen on 12/21/2020 03:10 pm
Could it be that for a used booster a static fire REDUCES the success probability.
Being a customer what would you rather have:
1. Loads of performance data from a successful lauch for the full engine runtime.
2. A 2 sec static fire. Possibly the short duration could break something and without the full duration you will miss it.

If something is going to break in a 2 second static fire, it will certainly fail during a 2 minute launch.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: john smith 19 on 12/21/2020 03:50 pm
I'm pretty surprised by no static fire for a NRO launch on a used booster. SpaceX must have made a convincing case with their data.

This suggests to me that future static fires for used boosters might only be for cases when the previous flight data had a few peculiarities, and/or they've changed out some major components.

This launch was unusual in that it was a commercial launch contract, not under NSSL. NRO wanted this bird up quickly, even opting for LC-39A vs the more secure SLC-40.
Interesting. it is commonly asserted that NRO payloads are very expensive, and hence justify all the little extras-at-extra-cost that ULA provide.

That they accepted a launch without static fire suggests either a) This payload was not one of the usual $Bn+ b)The couldn't negotiate a static fire (because that's no longer SOP for SX commercial launches) c) SX's data from previous launches is that good (and NRO has that much access to it) that NRO could look at it and say "OK, no problems here. Carry on"
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 12/21/2020 08:03 pm
[snip]
My guess: mostly a) and c).  One can ALWAYS negotiate further services for extra $$$.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: LouScheffer on 12/24/2020 03:20 am
I'm pretty surprised by no static fire for a NRO launch on a used booster. SpaceX must have made a convincing case with their data.

This suggests to me that future static fires for used boosters might only be for cases when the previous flight data had a few peculiarities, and/or they've changed out some major components.

This launch was unusual in that it was a commercial launch contract, not under NSSL. NRO wanted this bird up quickly, even opting for LC-39A vs the more secure SLC-40.
Interesting. it is commonly asserted that NRO payloads are very expensive, and hence justify all the little extras-at-extra-cost that ULA provide.

That they accepted a launch without static fire suggests either a) This payload was not one of the usual $Bn+ b)The couldn't negotiate a static fire (because that's no longer SOP for SX commercial launches) c) SX's data from previous launches is that good (and NRO has that much access to it) that NRO could look at it and say "OK, no problems here. Carry on"
Another possibility is that this was a pathfinder for "launch on demand", i.e. NRO buys a launch(s) in advance, for an un-determined date, but as soon as possible after they deliver the payload.   SpaceX is one of the few (likely only) vendor that could commit to launch immediately after they receive the payload, as they have a stock of available boosters.  If it's really a rush job, skipping the static fire would save a few days.  So maybe they did this as for "test as you fly" reasons.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 01/04/2021 08:59 pm
Booster 1060.4 for Turksat 5A. (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=44188.msg2163787#msg2163787)  Launch currently scheduled for [January 4 EST] / January 5 UTC, SLC-40.

Will SpaceX perform a Static Fire?

Apparently not.

A Static Fire, before a GTO launch for an external customer, would (most likely) be performed without payload and payload fairing attached.  After the firing, then the LV would return to the SLC-40 HIF for payload integration.  And, then the LV would return to the pad for launch.

Launch currently scheduled for January 6 7 EST / January 7 8 UTC.  The back-up launch window is 24 hours later.

No sign of LV transport yet from HIF to SLC-40 (January 4 2200 UTC).

EDIT January 7 EDT: LV vertical before this January 7 Tweet.  No Static Fire.
https://twitter.com/EmreKelly/status/1347203176580190215
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 01/14/2021 02:47 am
Will there be a Static Fire before the launch of Starlink v1.0 Flight 16?

The first stage will likely be 1051.8 1049.8, the first eighth use of a Falcon 9 first stage.  Because of this, I think that there will be a Static Fire, with the payload attached.  We shall see.

The launch is currently scheduled for January 18 17.
***

Will there be a Static Fire before the launch of Transporter-1?  And, if so, will it be with the multiple payloads attached?

The first stage will likely be 1058.5.

The launch is currently scheduled for NET January 23 22 21.

Edited
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 01/18/2021 04:24 am
Will there be a Static Fire before the launch of Starlink v1.0 Flight 16?

Apparently, no. LV was not transported to the pad today, January 17, for a launch scheduled on the 18th.

Launch is now scheduled for the 20th 19th.

LV was transported to the pad on the evening of January 19, for a launch scheduled on the 20th.

No Static Fire before January 20 launch.

Edited
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 01/21/2021 03:24 am
Will there be a Static Fire before the launch of Transporter-1?  The launch is currently scheduled for January 22.

Apparently, no.  As of the evening of January 20, the LV has not transported to the pad.

Edit: No Static Fire before January 24 launch.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 01/21/2021 03:28 am
Will there be a Static Fire before the launch of Starlink v1.0 Flight 17?

The first stage will likely be 1049.8, the second eighth use of a Falcon 9 first stage.  1051.8, also with 60 Starlink satellites as payload, was not Static Fired before launch.  I doubt this one will be either.

The launch is currently scheduled for January 27, but the consensus here is that launch may slip several days later.

Edit: Launch scheduled January 30 29.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 01/26/2021 07:05 pm
Will there be a Static Fire before the launch of Starlink v1.0 Flight 18?

The first stage will likely be 1059.6.  As an "only" sixth use of a Falcon 9 first stage, I doubt that there will be a Static Fire before launch.

Launch is currently scheduled for February 4.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 01/28/2021 06:38 pm
Will there be a Static Fire before the launch of Starlink v1.0 Flight 17?
Yes.
LV transported to the pad today, January 28 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=52511.msg2184785#msg2184785), with payloads and fairing.

https://spaceflightnow.com/2021/01/28/falcon-9-rocket-arrives-on-pad-39a-for-sunrise-starlink-launch-this-weekend/
Quote
There is an instantaneous launch opportunity at 7:02 a.m. EST (1202 GMT), about 10 minutes before sunrise Sunday.

Possible static fire as well.

However, the first attempt at Static Fire on January 29 was aborted (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=52511.msg2184991#msg2184991).

Then, the LV returned to horizontal on January 30 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=52511.msg2184991#msg2184991).

On the EST afternoon of the 30th, the LV was raised vertical again! (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=52511.msg2185654#msg2185654)

A successful Static Fire occurred on the afternoon of January 31. (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=52511.msg2185917#msg2185917)

Launch scheduled for January 31.

Multiple edits
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 02/04/2021 02:40 am
Will there be a Static Fire before the launch of Starlink v1.0 Flight 18?

The first stage will be 1060.5 1059.6.  As an "only" fifth sixth use of a Falcon 9 first stage, I doubt that there will be a Static Fire before launch.

Launch is currently scheduled for February 4.

LV raised on SLC-40 on February 3rd.  No Static Fire before launch.
Launched on February 4.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 02/06/2021 05:24 pm
Will there be a Static Fire before the launch of Starlink v1.0 Flight 19?

The first stage will likely be 1059.6.  As an "only" sixth use of a Falcon 9 first stage, I doubt that there will be a Static Fire before launch.

Launch is currently scheduled for February 15 14 12 UTC.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 02/06/2021 05:27 pm
Given the continuing multiple delays of the launch, will there be another Static Fire of B1049.8 before the launch of Starlink v1.0 Flight 17?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 02/12/2021 04:38 am
Will there be a Static Fire before the launch of Starlink v1.0 Flight 19?

The first stage will likely be 1059.6.  As an "only" sixth use of a Falcon 9 first stage, I doubt that there will be a Static Fire before launch.

Launch is currently scheduled for February 15 14 12 UTC.

Perhaps there will be a Static Fire before launch; the LV is vertical on the pad, February 11 evening EST.  That's just-in-time delivery, if a Static Fire will be executed before a launch on February 14 13 evening EST:
Falcon 9 is vertical at SLC-40

https://twitter.com/Cygnusx112/status/1359999128827265030
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 02/13/2021 08:39 pm
Will there be a Static Fire before the launch of Starlink v1.0 Flight 19?
The first stage will likely be 1059.6.  As an "only" sixth use of a Falcon 9 first stage, I doubt that there will be a Static Fire before launch.
Launch is currently scheduled for February 15 14 12 UTC.
Perhaps there will be a Static Fire before launch; the LV is vertical on the pad, February 11 evening EST.  That's just-in-time delivery, if a Static Fire will be executed before a launch on February 14 13 evening EST:

Yes, why?
Pardon me if I missed something but do we know why B1059 is static firing? The booster hasn't done that since her maiden re-flight so I'm wondering if they swapped an engine or something.

Static Fire on afternoon February 13 EST.
Quote from: SpaceX
Static fire test complete – targeting Sunday, February 14 at 11:21 p.m. EST for launch of 60 Starlink satellites from SLC-40.

EDIT
Launched February 16 UTC.  ASDS landing failed.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 02/17/2021 08:14 pm
Will there be a Static Fire before the launch of Starlink v1.0 Flight 20?

The first stage will likely be either 1051.9 or 1058.6.

Even before the landing loss of 1059.6, I expected a Static Fire for 1051.9, as the first ninth flight of a Falcon 9 first stage.

SpaceX chose to use 1058.6 on this launch.

Given the loss of 1059.6, I wonder if SpaceX will perform a Static Fire on 1058.6.

Launch is currently scheduled for NET February 25 March 8 UTC.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 02/18/2021 07:33 pm
Given the continuing multiple delays of the launch, will there be another Static Fire of B1049.8 before the launch of Starlink v1.0 Flight 17?
Question is even more relevant after the ASDS landing failure of B1059.6.

Launch NET February 26 UTC.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 02/21/2021 09:54 pm
Will there be a Static Fire before the launch of Starlink v1.0 Flight 21?

The first stage will likely be 1051.9.

Even before the landing loss of 1059.6, I expected a Static Fire for 1051.9, as the first ninth flight of a Falcon 9 first stage.

No launch date yet announced.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 02/24/2021 03:23 am
Given the continuing multiple delays of the launch, will there be another Static Fire of B1049.8 before the launch of Starlink v1.0 Flight 17?
Question is even more relevant after the ASDS landing failure of B1059.6.

Cross-post:
Quote from: Emre Kelly tweet
Falcon 9 and its Starlink payload went vertical at 39A about an hour ago [February 23 afternoon EST]...
Launch is currently scheduled for February 28 EST--5 days later.

I suspect that another Static Fire will precede launch.

EDIT/ADD--Second successful Static Fire on February 24.
Static fire test was performed at 3am EST.
Quote from: William Harwood tweet
F9/Starlink-20 [F9/Starlink v1.0 Flight 17]: SpaceX carried out a Falcon 9 hot-fire test at KSC pad 39A this morning at 3am EST (08:00 GMT); this was the 2nd static firing for stage B1049; we’ll now await an update from SpaceX on plans to launch 60 more Starlinks this weekend.

Follow-up edit: Successful launch and first stage ASDS landing on March 4 UTC.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: scr00chy on 03/04/2021 03:17 pm
This is now the next Falcon 9 launch.
I wonder when the LV will be erected at the pad?

Static Fire or not to Static fire?

With the recent loss of booster 1059 I'd bet they do Static Fires on all vehicles for sometime.

I wouldn't be so sure. The Falcon that failed recently did have a SF prior to that launch and it didn't help. :) I think the lessons from that anomaly will be applied to inspections and refurbishment processes and will not necessarily affect their decision-making about whether to do SF or not.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 03/04/2021 03:56 pm
Bump as launch approaches for B1058.6; watching for vehicle erection.  Launch now March 9 UTC.

Will there be a Static Fire before the launch of Starlink v1.0 Flight 20?

The first stage will likely be either 1051.9 or 1058.6.

Even before the landing loss of 1059.6, I expected a Static Fire for 1051.9, as the first ninth flight of a Falcon 9 first stage.

SpaceX chose to use 1058.6 on this launch.

Given the loss of 1059.6, I wonder if SpaceX will perform a Static Fire on 1058.6.

Launch is currently scheduled for NET February 25 March 8 UTC.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: cscott on 03/04/2021 04:56 pm


This is now the next Falcon 9 launch.
I wonder when the LV will be erected at the pad?

Static Fire or not to Static fire?

With the recent loss of booster 1059 I'd bet they do Static Fires on all vehicles for sometime.

[zubenelgenubi: Dedicated thread for Static Fire updates and discussion here (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=51340.0).]

I'd think boots are more likely to be damaged during a static fire. If boot damage is a concern, I'd think it would have the opposite effect, and make them less likely to do "unnecessary" static fires which age the boots.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 03/07/2021 02:22 am
Re: Static Fire? for Starlink v1.0 Flight 20:
I'd think boots are more likely to be damaged during a static fire. If boot damage is a concern, I'd think it would have the opposite effect, and make them less likely to do "unnecessary" static fires which age the boots.
My opinion: Boot damage during a 2 or 3 second Static Fire is not a significant factor.
My further opinion: I'll bet any damage done is either inflicted during re-entry and the associated burns, and secondarily during ascent.

We should know soon.  It's now March 7 UTC.  Launch is currently scheduled for March 10 UTC.

If there will be a Static Fire, then the LV will be transported to the pad shortly.
(LV to pad with satellites loaded under the fairing > prep > Static Fire > analysis and any final prep > countdown)

If there will be no Static Fire, then the LV won't appear on the pad until the day before launch or so, with launch preparations until the countdown begins.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: wannamoonbase on 03/08/2021 10:08 pm
Well SpaceX just fired up the next one.

They are really getting alot of cycles on fueling and firing up the F9.

It's amazing how casual it has become to launch 60, 60!!! satellites in one flight, ever couple of weeks.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 03/08/2021 11:48 pm
Re: Static Fire? for Starlink v1.0 Flight 20:
If there will be a Static Fire, then the LV will be transported to the pad shortly.

Static Fire? Yes.
Quote from: William Harwood tweet
F9/Starlink 21 (V1-L20): SpaceX test fired the first stage engines of a Falcon 9 rocket at LC-40 today [March 8] at 6pm EST (2300 GMT); test appeared normal; we'll now stand by for an update from SpaceX on plans to launch 60 Starlinks from the Cape Canaveral SFS Tuesday night.
Launch scheduled for March 9 EST/March 10 UTC.

Update: Successful launch March 11, followed by successful first stage ASDS landing.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 03/13/2021 02:06 am
Will there be a Static Fire before the launch of Starlink v1.0 Flight 21?

The first stage will likely be 1051.9.

Even before the landing loss of 1059.6, I expected a Static Fire for 1051.9, as the first ninth flight of a Falcon 9 first stage.

I guessed wrong, apparently. As of this post, about one day before launch, the LV has not been moved to the pad.
Quote from: SpaceX tweet
Targeting Sunday, March 14 at 6:01 a.m. EDT for Falcon 9's next launch of 60 Starlink satellites. The first stage booster supporting this mission has completed eight flights to date.
= 10:01 March 14 UTC
B1051.9 (1st ninth use)

Edit: LV transported to and raised on pad Saturday, March 13. No Static Fire. (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=52985.msg2204788#msg2204788)

Edit: Successful launch and ASDS landing on March 14.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 03/13/2021 02:11 pm
Will there be a Static Fire before the launch of Starlink v1.0 Flight 22?

The first stage will be 1060.6.  Launch is currently scheduled for March 24 23 22 21 UTC.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 03/17/2021 06:42 pm
Will there be a Static Fire before the launch of Starlink v1.0 Flight 23?

We don't know the ID of the first stage; we don't know exactly when the launch is scheduled, but it could be circa April 1; etc.!

This could be the first Florida launch for B1063.

Edited March 26: Launch scheduled for April 7.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 03/23/2021 04:06 pm
Will there be a Static Fire before the launch of Starlink v1.0 Flight 22?
No, apparently.
LV vertical on the pad March 23 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=53068.msg2209638#msg2209638), one day before launch on the 24th.  Successful launch and successful first stage ASDS landing on the 24th.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: RocketLover0119 on 03/23/2021 04:31 pm
At this point, I think static fires will only come on customer payloads, and potentially boosters that are in the mid point of life, like 3-5 (maybe a wider envelope), or if an issue were to arise,(such as one of the recent Starlink missions) and extra precaution is wanted.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: [email protected] on 04/07/2021 02:23 pm
Will there be a Static Fire before the launch of Starlink v1.0 Flight 23?

We don't know the ID of the first stage; we don't know exactly when the launch is scheduled, but it could be circa April 1; etc.!

This could be the first Florida launch for B1063.

Edited March 26: Launch scheduled for April 7.
Obviously no static fire, less than 3 hours away from launch
Booster 1058.7 is vertical
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 04/09/2021 02:05 am
Will there be a Static Fire before the launch of Starlink v1.0 Flight 23?

We don't know the ID of the first stage; we don't know exactly when the launch is scheduled, but it could be circa April 1; etc.!

This could be the first Florida launch for B1063.

Edited March 26: Launch scheduled for April 7.
Obviously no static fire, less than 3 hours away from launch
Booster 1058.7 is vertical
April 7: Successful launch and 1st stage recovery via ASDS landing.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 04/09/2021 02:11 am
A Static Fire will be part of the launch preparations for Crew-2.  See NSF article SpaceX and NASA entering final preparations for Crew-2 launch (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2021/04/spacex-nasa-preparations-crew-2/), dated April 1. (My bold)
Quote
During static fire, the launch teams will work through a launch-day countdown, including fueling Falcon 9 and test firing all nine of its first stage engines for a few seconds. The crew will not be placed inside the Dragon for the static fire, which is currently set to take place on April 17, five days before launch [April 22].
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 04/19/2021 02:31 am
A Static Fire will be part of the launch preparations for Crew-2.  See NSF article SpaceX and NASA entering final preparations for Crew-2 launch (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2021/04/spacex-nasa-preparations-crew-2/), dated April 1. (My bold)
Quote
During static fire, the launch teams will work through a launch-day countdown, including fueling Falcon 9 and test firing all nine of its first stage engines for a few seconds. The crew will not be placed inside the Dragon for the static fire, which is currently set to take place on April 17, five days before launch [April 22].

April 17 Static Fire is successful. (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=53596.msg2222090#msg2222090)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 04/19/2021 02:34 am
Will there be a Static Fire before the launch of Starlink v1.0 Flight 24?

We don't yet know the ID of the first stage.  Launch is scheduled for April 28.

EDIT April 19: B1060.7
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 04/27/2021 06:47 pm
Will there be a Static Fire before the launch of Starlink v1.0 Flight 24?

We don't yet know the ID of the first stage.  Launch is scheduled for April 28.

EDIT April 19: B1060.7

Apparently, no.  Falcon 9 erected April 27 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=53312.msg2228035#msg2228035).  Then, the launch was delayed to April 28 EDT/April 29 UTC.

Successful launch and ASDS landing.

Edits
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 04/30/2021 05:01 am
Will there be a Static Fire before the launch of Starlink v1.0 Flight 25?

The first stage will be 1049.9. (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=53331.msg2229900#msg2229900)  Launch is currently scheduled for May 4.

There was no Static Fire before the first ninth launch of a first stage. (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=51340.msg2204252#msg2204252)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 05/03/2021 06:26 pm
Will there be a Static Fire before the launch of Starlink v1.0 Flight 25?

The first stage will be 1049.9. (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=53331.msg2229900#msg2229900)  Launch is currently scheduled for May 4.

There was no Static Fire before the first ninth launch of a first stage. (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=51340.msg2204252#msg2204252)
Static Fire at 1 am EDT on May 3. (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=53331.msg2231613#msg2231613)

Successful launch and first stage ASDS landing on May 4.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: gemmy0I on 05/03/2021 07:34 pm
The policy seems to be to always static fire booster 1049 before every flight. They've been consistent on this regardless of whether 1049 was the fleet leader at the time.

Notably, they haven't always static fired 1051 when it was the leading edge, so this seems to be more of a 1049 issue than a leading-edge issue.

My theory on this continues to be that 1049 is "special" due to being the oldest (design-wise) booster in the fleet. We know SpaceX introduces minor design improvements on each successive build, and there were in fact some more major improvements made between 1049 and 1051 due to crew-rating. Modifications to the turbopumps to reduce the risk of blade cracking come to mind as the most major of these, and something that would definitely account for a desire to static fire 1049 each time for extra surveillance of the turbopumps.

The fact that it also consistently seems to take them longer to refurbish 1049 than the other boosters (even 1051 on leading-edge flights has seen some fast turnarounds) would seem to be in line with this theory.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 05/07/2021 07:27 pm
Will there be a Static Fire before the launch of Starlink v1.0 Flight 27?

The first stage will be 1051.10.  Launch is currently scheduled for May 9.  This will be the first 10th flight of a Falcon 9 first stage. (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=53524.msg2232117#msg2232117)

Edit May 8: No Static Fire.  LV erected this afternoon EDT. (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=53524.msg2234867#msg2234867)

Edit May 9: Successful launch and first stage ASDS landing.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 05/07/2021 07:30 pm
Will there be a Static Fire before the launch of Starlink v1.0 Flight 26?

The first stage will be 1058.8.  Launch is currently scheduled for May 15. (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=53414.msg2233823#msg2233823)

Edit May 14: Apparently, no.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 05/15/2021 01:04 am
Will there be a Static Fire before the launch of Starlink v1.0 Flight 28?

The first stage will be 1063.2.  Launch is currently scheduled for May 26. (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=53745.msg2237950#msg2237950)

This is after a cross-country shipment from Vandenberg. (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42977.msg2203591#msg2203591)

The one and only previous launch performed by this first stage was of Sentinel-6A on November 21, 2020. (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=44023.0)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 05/16/2021 11:25 am
Will there be a Static Fire before the launch of Starlink v1.0 Flight 26?

The first stage will be 1058.8.  Launch is currently scheduled for May 15. (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=53414.msg2233823#msg2233823)
No Static Fire. LV erected on the EDT afternoon of May 15. (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=53414.msg2238310#msg2238310)
Also May 15 EDT: A successful launch and first stage recovery on ASDS.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 05/24/2021 07:47 pm
Will there be a Static Fire before the launch of Starlink v1.0 Flight 28?

Apparently, yes. (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=53745.msg2242869#msg2242869)  Static Fire on the evening EDT of May 24. (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=53745.msg2243028#msg2243028)

Successful launch and 1st stage ASDS landing on May 26.

Edited
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 05/24/2021 10:09 pm
Will there be a Static Fire before the launch of Dragon SpX-22?

I suspect yes.  It's a Cargo Dragon flight.  And, it will be the first flight for first stage 1067.

Wrong.

Complete stack erected afternoon and evening of June 1 EDT. (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=52211.msg2246490#msg2246490)  No Static Fire. (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=52211.msg2247029#msg2247029)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 05/30/2021 06:08 pm
Will there be a Static Fire before the launch of SXM-8?

It will be the third flight for first stage 1061.  Therefore, I doubt it will be static fired.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: ChrML on 06/02/2021 08:55 pm
Likely statistics told them that most times there are not issues on the pad. The pad availability is the no.1 launch capacity constraint right now, makes sense trying to optimize it.

Pro of not doing a static fire on pad:
- Saving time on a shared resource, the pad, if everything is ok.

Cons of not doing a static fire on pad:
- If there is an issue with the vehicle or GSE that scrubs the launch that would be caught by a static fire, a lot more time is spent on the pad, and a precious launch window was wasted. Plus additional mission and range costs.

- Slightly higher risk if an issue not causing abort would be caught during post-static fire review.

Statistics should have data on the cons, and they concluded that no static fire is most efficient at this time.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 06/03/2021 05:04 pm
Will there be a Static Fire before the launch of Dragon SpX-22?

I suspect yes.  It's a Cargo Dragon flight.  And, it will be the first flight for first stage 1067.

Wrong.  Complete stack erected afternoon and evening of June 1 EDT. (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=52211.msg2246490#msg2246490)  No Static Fire. (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=52211.msg2247029#msg2247029)

EDIT June 3: Successful launch and first stage ASDS landing.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 06/03/2021 05:05 pm
Will there be a Static Fire before the launch of SXM-8?

It will be the third flight for first stage 1061.  Therefore, I doubt it will be static fired.

Wrong again!  Launch vehicle, minus payload, went to the pad in the afternoon EDT, June 2nd. (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=52196.msg2247142#msg2247142)  Static fire at 2:30 am EDT, June 3rd. (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=52196.msg2247312#msg2247312)

EDIT June 3: Did Sirius pay for a Static Fire?

EDIT June 6: Successful launch and first stage ASDS landing.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: dondar on 06/04/2021 03:58 pm
I am too lazy to check, but I am pretty much (sic) sure that static fire is determined by the launch pad availability over anything else. If they erect booster in time and have space (nothing being "scared" on other pads) and time for relaunch they do static fire. It's simple as that. Old, new,repaid booster doesn't matter.
I've mentioned the reason  already.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 06/09/2021 08:24 pm
Will there be a Static Fire before the launch of GPS III-5?

It will be the second flight for first stage 1062.  Therefore, I doubt it will be static fired, UNLESS the Space Force is paying for a Static Fire.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 06/12/2021 07:58 pm
Will there be a Static Fire before the launch of GPS III-5?

It will be the second flight for first stage 1062.  Therefore, I doubt it will be static fired, UNLESS the Space Force is paying for a Static Fire.

June 12, 19:30 UTC: Static Fire. (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=51997.msg2251460#msg2251460)

Edit June 17: Successful launch and first stage ASDS landing.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 06/15/2021 05:34 am
Will there be a Static Fire before the launch of Transporter-2?

It will be the eighth flight for first stage 1060.  It will also follow the previous launch from SLC-40 by seven days (as of this posting).  I doubt it will be static fired.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 06/23/2021 01:54 am
Will there be a Static Fire before the launch of Transporter-2?

It will be the eighth flight for first stage 1060.  It will also follow the previous launch from SLC-40 by seven days (as of this posting).  I doubt it will be static fired.
Wrong!  Successful static fire afternoon EDT June 22 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=51898.msg2255539#msg2255539), now three days before scheduled launch.

Successful launch and first stage LZ-1 landing on June 30!

Edited
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: Michael S on 06/23/2021 02:31 am
Will there be a Static Fire before the launch of Transporter-2?

It will be the eighth flight for first stage 1060.  It will also follow the previous launch from SLC-40 by seven days (as of this posting).  I doubt it will be static fired.
Wrong!  Successful static fire afternoon EDT July 22 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=51898.msg2255539#msg2255539), now three days before scheduled launch.

July?
Are you sure about that?
I only ask because July 22 is my birthday, and well, today is not my birthday.  :P
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 08/24/2021 10:04 pm
Will there be a Static Fire before the launch of SpaceX Dragon-23?

As of this posting, 4 days before launch, we don't know what booster will be used. The LV has not yet been transported to LC-39A.

Is 1051 still in Florida? Or was another first stage taken to Vandenberg in its place? Or, it could be 1058.9, 1060.3, 1061.4, 1063.3, 1067.2.

1062.3 will launch Inspiration4 next month.

We also don't know yet if there will be a Static Fire.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: [email protected] on 08/25/2021 05:07 am
Will there be a Static Fire before the launch of SpaceX Dragon-23?

As of this posting, 4 days before launch, we don't know what booster will be used. The LV has not yet been transported to LC-39A.

Is 1051 still in Florida? Or was another first stage taken to Vandenberg in its place? Or, it could be 1058.9, 1060.3, 1061.4, 1063.3, 1067.2.

1062.3 will launch Inspiration4 next month.

We also don't know yet if there will be a Static Fire.
The LV for CRS-23 has been rolled out. And yes, there will be a static fire. B1061.4 will be the booster according to Nextspaceflight
https://twitter.com/SpaceflightNow/status/1430389350764883968?s=19
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 08/26/2021 03:58 am
Successful B1061.4 SpX-23 Static Fire evening August 25 EDT. (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=52283.msg2282428#msg2282428)

Edit August 29: Successful launch and first stage ASDS landing on morning of August 29 EDT.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 08/31/2021 12:08 am
Will there be a Static Fire before the launch of Inspiration4?

I expect yes, as part of the preparation for a crewed Dragon flight.  First stage is 1062.3.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: RocketLover0119 on 08/31/2021 12:25 am
Will there be a Static Fire before the launch of Inspiration4?

I expect yes, as part of the preparation for a crewed Dragon flight.  First stage is 1062.3.

Considering this is such a valuable mission, including humans, I would imagine they will do a firing.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 09/02/2021 06:17 pm
Will there be a Static Fire before the Starlink 2-1 launch from Vandenberg?
Answer: yes!
Quote from: September 2 SpaceX tweet
Static fire test of Falcon 9 complete – targeting later this month for first West Coast Starlink mission, will announce a target date closer to launch.
B1049.10

Edit September 14 UTC: Successful launch and first stage ASDS landing today.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 09/13/2021 08:34 pm
Will there be a Static Fire before the launch of Inspiration4?

I expect yes, as part of the preparation for a crewed Dragon flight.  First stage is 1062.3.

Yes, a successful Static Fire in the pre-dawn hours of September 13 EDT. (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=52958.msg2289203#msg2289203)

Edit September 15 evening EDT: Successful launch and ASDS first stage landing.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 10/12/2021 04:28 am
Will there be a Static Fire before the Starlink 2-3 Starlink 2-2 launch from Vandenberg?

The identity of the first stage has not yet been announced.  It's 1051.11.

If it is 1049.11, then I expect yes.  As a booster manufactured before 1050, SpaceX seems to static fire it before every launch--standard operating procedure. However, this would require an approximate 1 month turnaround.
Edit: Never mind.  1049 reported leaving California after the Starlink 2-1 recovery.

1063's next and third flight is reserved for DART.
Edit: Or, is it?

If it's yet another booster, transported from elsewhere, then I expect yes to ensure its proper function after said transport.
Edits: 1051 may have arrived at VSFB circa September 1.
I could be wrong about a static fire as a SpaceX SOP after cross-country road transport.

Edit: Launch scheduled for TBD October 17.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 10/21/2021 04:55 pm
Will there be a Static Fire before the launch of Crew-3?

Yes, as part of the preparation for a crewed Dragon flight.  First stage is 1067.2.

Launch is currently scheduled for October 31.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 10/28/2021 12:47 pm
Will there be a Static Fire before the launch of Crew-3?

Successful Static Fire on October 28. (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=51899.msg2304596#msg2304596)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 11/05/2021 11:57 pm
Will there be a Static Fire before the launch of Starlink 4-1?

First stage identity is not yet known.  There is a plentitude to choose from.  Launch will be from SLC-40.
Edit Nov 7: It's 1062.4.
Edit Nov 10: Falcon on the pad.

Launch is currently scheduled for November 12.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 11/08/2021 12:42 pm
Will there be a Static Fire before the launch of DART?

First stage identity is 1063.3.  I assume NASA is paying for a static fire before an interplanetary launch.

Launch is currently scheduled for November 24 UTC.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: [email protected] on 11/10/2021 10:25 pm
Will there be a Static Fire before the launch of Starlink 4-1?

First stage identity is not yet known.  There is a plentitude to choose from.  Launch will be from SLC-40.
Edit Nov 7: It's 1062.4.
Edit Nov 10: Falcon on the pad.

Launch is currently scheduled for November 12.
Yes
Per the Crew-3 webcast, the vehicle for this mission will be doing a static fire tomorrow.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: wannamoonbase on 11/10/2021 10:59 pm
Will there be a Static Fire before the launch of Starlink 4-1?

First stage identity is not yet known.  There is a plentitude to choose from.  Launch will be from SLC-40.
Edit Nov 7: It's 1062.4.
Edit Nov 10: Falcon on the pad.

Launch is currently scheduled for November 12.
Yes
Per the Crew-3 webcast, the vehicle for this mission will be doing a static fire tomorrow.

Since it's been 4+ months since the last SLC40 flight the static fire maybe as much for the launch team and launch complex as it is for the rocket.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 11/11/2021 01:45 am
Will there be a Static Fire before the launch of Crew-3?

Successful Static Fire on October 28. (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=51899.msg2304596#msg2304596)

Successful first stage landing aboard ASOG on November 11 UTC. (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=55188.msg2309111#msg2309111)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 11/11/2021 05:05 pm
Will there be a Static Fire before the launch of Starlink 4-1?

First stage identity is not yet known.  There is a plentitude to choose from.  Launch will be from SLC-40.
Edit Nov 7: It's 1062.4.
Edit Nov 10: Falcon on the pad.

Launch is currently scheduled for November 12.
Yes
Per the Crew-3 webcast, the vehicle for this mission will be doing a static fire tomorrow.

Since it's been 4+ months since the last SLC40 flight the static fire maybe as much for the launch team and launch complex as it is for the rocket.

Successful Static Fire circa 12:00 UTC November 11. (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=53788.msg2309259#msg2309259)

Edit November 13: Successful launch and first stage ASDS recovery.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: markbike528cbx on 11/13/2021 07:40 am
Will there be a Static Fire before the launch of DART?

First stage identity is 1063.3.  I assume NASA is paying for a static fire before an interplanetary launch.

Launch is currently scheduled for November 24 UTC.
Is there a typical time window between static fire and launch?
I'll be rolling past SLC-4E on the at about 4PM on November 18th.  Any chance of seeing the rocket upright?
I understand (and hope) that we are not that close (0.8mile, 1.25km) during a static fire.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 11/19/2021 08:56 pm
Will there be a Static Fire before the launch of DART?

Successful Static Fire November 19 morning PST. (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=47871.msg2312478#msg2312478)

Edit November 24 UTC: Successful launch and first stage OCISLY landing.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 11/21/2021 05:46 am
Will there be a Static Fire before the launch of Starlink 4-3?

First stage identity is not yet known.  There is a plentitude to choose from.  Launch will be from SLC-40.

Launch is currently scheduled for December 2 1.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: russianhalo117 on 11/25/2021 01:11 am
Will there be a Static Fire before the launch of DART?

Successful Static Fire November 19 morning PST. (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=47871.msg2312478#msg2312478)

Edit November 24 UTC: Successful launch and first stage ASDS landing.
Updated: a wildfire started from the flame trench and burned a smallish sizable area before crews could respond.

Looks like no one posted about the wildfire DART's static fire test caused so posting the summary report:

https://youtu.be/AhyVT0z1UUY
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 12/02/2021 11:33 am
Will there be a Static Fire before the launch of Starlink 4-3?

First stage identity is not yet known.  There is a plentitude to choose from.  Launch will be from SLC-40.

Launch is currently scheduled for December 2.

edited

Apparent Successful Static Fire on December 1 evening EST. (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=55232.msg2316265#msg2316265)
It's B1060.9.

Edit Dec 2: Successful launch and first stage landing aboard ASOG.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 12/04/2021 04:42 am
Given the continued routine nature of Falcon Static Fires, or not, in recent months...

I suggest that we return to discussing Falcon Static Fires in the individual launch threads, until and unless this splinter thread is needed.

I have done so, starting with the Static Fire for IXPE.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: Josh_from_Canada on 12/04/2021 04:47 am
Is there a list of what missions have conducted static fires or not? If there's not and someone decides to make one, could you include if the payload was attached to the rocket or not.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: [email protected] on 01/07/2022 12:42 am
I suggest that we should go back to this thread, because it's easier to track the history of static fires without having to dig deep into each launch threads

Successful launch & landing (ASOG) of Falcon 9 Starlink 4-5 with B1062.4 on January 6, no static fire
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: [email protected] on 01/12/2022 10:08 pm
Will there be a static fire of Transporter-3?

The booster is B1058.10, and so far no indication of static fire yet. The launch vehicle is already vertical with the payload
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: wannamoonbase on 01/13/2022 06:25 pm
Will there be a static fire of Transporter-3?

The booster is B1058.10, and so far no indication of static fire yet. The launch vehicle is already vertical with the payload

Did I miss a Static Fire for this, seems there wasn't one.

Maybe it corelates to the more recently produced Block 5 boosters.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: [email protected] on 01/13/2022 10:06 pm
Will there be a static fire of Transporter-3?

The booster is B1058.10, and so far no indication of static fire yet. The launch vehicle is already vertical with the payload
Successful launch & landing of Transporter-3 at 10:25 AM EST, no static fire
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: [email protected] on 01/14/2022 10:47 pm
Will there be a Static Fire for Starlink 4-6?

My >guesses<

Yes, if it's 1049.12, a use before its deduced, final, expendable flight in the coming months.

Yes, if it's 1052.3, following its refurbishment from Falcon Heavy side booster to single stick.

No, if it's 1060.10, 1061.6, or 1067.4.

Counting out 1069.2 for now.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: [email protected] on 01/23/2022 09:41 pm
Static fire has occurred for CSG-2 launch. Booster number currently unknown
https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1485362210935226368?t=nNp5EfIk3_OtwE-cifZGIw&s=19
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9: To Static Fire or not to Static Fire; that is the question
Post by: Yiosie on 10/02/2022 08:59 pm
Catching up on Falcon 9 static fire tests since January:

April 5:

https://twitter.com/spacex/status/1511393752312520706

Quote
Static fire test of Falcon 9 complete – targeting Friday, April 15 for launch of the NROL-85 mission from Vandenberg in California. The Falcon 9 first stage supporting this mission previously launched NROL-87 in February.

April 6:

https://twitter.com/spacex/status/1511784137861988356

Quote
Static fire test of Falcon 9 complete – targeting Friday, April 8 at 11:17 a.m. ET for launch of @Axiom_Space’s Ax-1 mission; weather forecast is currently 80% favorable for liftoff and teams are monitoring conditions along the ascent corridor

April 20:

https://twitter.com/spacex/status/1516781850873659392

Quote
Static fire test of Falcon 9 complete ahead of the Crew-4 mission to the @space_station

August 25:

https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1562809375411974144

Quote
Static fire test complete – targeting Saturday, August 27 at 10:22 p.m. ET for a Falcon 9 launch of 54 Starlink satellites to orbit from SLC-40 in Florida; team is keeping an eye on weather

September 11:

https://twitter.com/spacex/status/1568956790934470656

Quote
Static fire test of Falcon 9 complete – targeting Tuesday, September 13 for launch of 54 Starlink satellites to orbit from SLC-40 in Florida → spacex.com/launches/sl4-34/

October 2:

https://twitter.com/spacex/status/1576667594899173376

Quote
Static fire test of Falcon 9 complete ahead of the Crew-5 mission to the @space_station