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.
Quote from: Norm38 on 06/26/2020 06:54 pmThis 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......
Quote from: RocketLover0119 on 06/26/2020 07:01 pmQuote from: Norm38 on 06/26/2020 06:54 pmThis 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.
The opposite. I know there was no leak on Wed, else they wouldn’t have fired.
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.
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.
Quote from: TorenAltair on 06/27/2020 08:39 amAs 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.
A good indication of its legitimacy is that it was deleted.
Quote from: Norm38 on 06/27/2020 02:31 amIf 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!
Quote from: king1999 on 06/27/2020 04:51 amQuote from: Norm38 on 06/27/2020 02:31 amIf 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.
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: king1999 on 06/27/2020 04:51 amQuote from: Norm38 on 06/27/2020 02:31 amIf 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.
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?"
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.
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: 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. 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.
Quote from: dondar on 08/13/2020 08:11 pmQuote from: 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. 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.
Also, a reminder about the upcoming Static Fire--if the information is still correct, then Static Fire will be on August 22.Quote from: TJL on 07/20/2020 11:41 pmQuote from: whitelancer64 on 07/20/2020 11:13 pmQuote from: KTigress on 07/20/2020 02:20 amQuote from: scr00chy on 07/19/2020 12:04 pmQuote from: gongora on 07/19/2020 03:38 am I followed the story on the web: https://bit.ly/EquiposSAOCOMThe article has some good infoQuoteFive 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.
Quote from: whitelancer64 on 07/20/2020 11:13 pmQuote from: KTigress on 07/20/2020 02:20 amQuote from: scr00chy on 07/19/2020 12:04 pmQuote from: gongora on 07/19/2020 03:38 am I followed the story on the web: https://bit.ly/EquiposSAOCOMThe article has some good infoQuoteFive 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.
Quote from: KTigress on 07/20/2020 02:20 amQuote from: scr00chy on 07/19/2020 12:04 pmQuote from: gongora on 07/19/2020 03:38 am I followed the story on the web: https://bit.ly/EquiposSAOCOMThe article has some good infoQuoteFive 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.
Quote from: scr00chy on 07/19/2020 12:04 pmQuote from: gongora on 07/19/2020 03:38 am I followed the story on the web: https://bit.ly/EquiposSAOCOMThe article has some good infoQuoteFive 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.
Quote from: gongora on 07/19/2020 03:38 am I followed the story on the web: https://bit.ly/EquiposSAOCOMThe article has some good infoQuoteFive 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?
I followed the story on the web: https://bit.ly/EquiposSAOCOMThe article has some good info
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.
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).
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?!Quote from: Salo on 08/18/2020 02:10 pmScheduled:Date - Satellite(s) - Rocket - Launch Site - Time (UTC)2020August 26 - NROL-44: Orion 10 (Mentor 8 ) (TBD) - Delta IV-H [D-385] - Canaveral SLC-37B - 06:16-10:25August 27 - SAOCOM-1B, Capella 2 (Sequoia), GNOMES-1 - Falcon 9-092 (B1059.4 L) - Canaveral SLC-40 - 23:19NET August 28? Late August September - Starlink flight 12 (x60) [v1.0 L11] - Falcon 9 (1060.2 S) - Kennedy LC-39A / Canaveral SLC-40Changes on August 20thzubenelgenubi August 21
Scheduled:Date - Satellite(s) - Rocket - Launch Site - Time (UTC)2020August 26 - NROL-44: Orion 10 (Mentor 8 ) (TBD) - Delta IV-H [D-385] - Canaveral SLC-37B - 06:16-10:25August 27 - SAOCOM-1B, Capella 2 (Sequoia), GNOMES-1 - Falcon 9-092 (B1059.4 L) - Canaveral SLC-40 - 23:19NET August 28? Late August September - Starlink flight 12 (x60) [v1.0 L11] - Falcon 9 (1060.2 S) - Kennedy LC-39A / Canaveral SLC-40Changes on August 20thzubenelgenubi August 21
An "internal" payload (Starlink), and launch on a once-used first stage.Could this launch go forward with no Static Fire?Quote from: zubenelgenubi on 08/20/2020 05:08 pmEDIT 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?!
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?!
Quote from: zubenelgenubi on 08/23/2020 02:16 amQuote from: KTigress on 08/21/2020 10:52 pmFinally, 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.
Quote from: KTigress on 08/21/2020 10:52 pmFinally, 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.
Cross-post:Quote from: zubenelgenubi on 08/27/2020 05:00 amQuote from: zubenelgenubi on 08/23/2020 02:16 amQuote from: KTigress on 08/21/2020 10:52 pmFinally, 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.
An "internal" payload (Starlink), and launch on a once-used first stage.Could this launch go forward with no Static Fire?
Quote from: TorenAltair on 06/27/2020 08:39 amAs 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.
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.
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.)
Quote from: zubenelgenubi on 09/15/2020 02:01 pmIt'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.
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.)
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.
GPS III-4 LV is new; Static Fire occurred September 25 at 06:00 EDT.
Quote from: SpaceFinnOriginal on 10/20/2020 04:44 pmWas 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.
Was there a static fire test?
Quote from: zubenelgenubi on 09/25/2020 08:17 pmGPS III-4 LV is new; Static Fire occurred September 25 at 06:00 EDT.Another Static Fire is expected after the engine removal and replacement, and before launch.
https://twitter.com/spacex/status/1322702955007541249QuoteStatic fire test complete – targeting Thursday, November 5 for Falcon 9 launch of GPS III-4 from SLC-40
Static fire test complete – targeting Thursday, November 5 for Falcon 9 launch of GPS III-4 from SLC-40
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>
Re: Crew-1 Static Fire:Quote from: TweetNASA'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.]
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.]
Quote from: FutureSpaceTourist on 11/08/2020 06:22 pmRe: Crew-1 Static Fire:Quote from: TweetNASA'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.]
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.
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
My bold; Static Fire?Quote from: Raul on 11/11/2020 08:32 amFrom sentinel6.blogQuote<snip>Preparations were underway for the rehearsals of the satellite on on Thursday and the launcher on Friday [November 13].<snip>
From sentinel6.blogQuote<snip>Preparations were underway for the rehearsals of the satellite on on Thursday and the launcher on Friday [November 13].<snip>
<snip>Preparations were underway for the rehearsals of the satellite on on Thursday and the launcher on Friday [November 13].<snip>
When will be the Static Fire of B1063.1, Vandenberg AFB, for Sentinel-6A?:
https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1328779234945478663QuoteStatic 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
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
Quote from: TweetLooks like the static fire may have been aborted. We did not see any action at 1:30 a.m. [November 20] Eastern as expected.
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 test complete – targeting Falcon 9 launch of Starlink from SLC-40 in Florida on Sunday, November 22.
Dragon SpX-21 currently scheduled to launch from KSC LC-39A on December 5, 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).
Dragon SpX-21 currently scheduled to launch from KSC LC-39A on December 5, 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://twitter.com/spacex/status/1334502616374550529QuoteStatic 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
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
I believe that late load can be undertaken via the crew access arm, on the pad & vertical.
Quote from: zubenelgenubi on 10/25/2020 12:32 amOpen question: Will SpaceX perform a Static Fire on the 1st stage for NROL-108? What does the "customer" want?Cross-post:Quote from: AndrewRG10 on 10/26/2020 05:07 amNextSpaceflight 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
Open question: Will SpaceX perform a Static Fire on the 1st stage for NROL-108? What does the "customer" want?
SXM-7 launching to GTO on December 10 from SLC-40, aboard Falcon 9 first stage 1051.7. 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.
https://twitter.com/nasaspaceflight/status/1336083637935214595QuoteStatic 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.
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.
Quote from: zubenelgenubi on 11/13/2020 11:11 pmQuote from: zubenelgenubi on 10/25/2020 12:32 amOpen question: Will SpaceX perform a Static Fire on the 1st stage for NROL-108? What does the "customer" want?Cross-post:Quote from: AndrewRG10 on 10/26/2020 05:07 amNextSpaceflight 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/5112Launch NET December 17, from KSC LC-39A, still B1059.5.
https://twitter.com/emrekelly/status/1339221785057894400QuoteFalcon 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.
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: Joffan on 12/19/2020 05:02 pmI'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.
[snip]
Quote from: Jansen on 12/20/2020 12:23 pmQuote from: Joffan on 12/19/2020 05:02 pmI'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"
Booster 1060.4 for Turksat 5A. Launch currently scheduled for [January 4 EST] / January 5 UTC, SLC-40.Will SpaceX perform a Static Fire?
Will there be a Static Fire before the launch of Starlink v1.0 Flight 16?
Will there be a Static Fire before the launch of Transporter-1? The launch is currently scheduled for January 22.
Will there be a Static Fire before the launch of Starlink v1.0 Flight 17?
https://spaceflightnow.com/2021/01/28/falcon-9-rocket-arrives-on-pad-39a-for-sunrise-starlink-launch-this-weekend/QuoteThere is an instantaneous launch opportunity at 7:02 a.m. EST (1202 GMT), about 10 minutes before sunrise Sunday.Possible static fire as well.
There is an instantaneous launch opportunity at 7:02 a.m. EST (1202 GMT), about 10 minutes before sunrise Sunday.
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.
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.
Falcon 9 is vertical at SLC-40https://twitter.com/Cygnusx112/status/1359999128827265030
Quote from: zubenelgenubi on 02/06/2021 05:24 pmWill 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:
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.
Quote from: SpaceXStatic fire test complete – targeting Sunday, February 14 at 11:21 p.m. EST for launch of 60 Starlink satellites from SLC-40.
Static fire test complete – targeting Sunday, February 14 at 11:21 p.m. EST for launch of 60 Starlink satellites from SLC-40.
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?
Quote from: zubenelgenubi on 02/06/2021 05:27 pmGiven 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.
Quote from: Emre Kelly tweetFalcon 9 and its Starlink payload went vertical at 39A about an hour ago [February 23 afternoon EST]...
Falcon 9 and its Starlink payload went vertical at 39A about an hour ago [February 23 afternoon EST]...
Static fire test was performed at 3am EST.Quote from: William Harwood tweetF9/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.
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.
Quote from: zubenelgenubi on 03/04/2021 02:51 pmThis 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.
This is now the next Falcon 9 launch.I wonder when the LV will be erected at the pad?
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.
Quote from: zubenelgenubi on 03/04/2021 02:51 pmThis 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.]
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.
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.
Quote from: William Harwood tweetF9/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.
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.
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.
Quote from: SpaceX tweetTargeting 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.
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.
Will there be a Static Fire before the launch of Starlink v1.0 Flight 22?
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.
Booster 1058.7 is vertical
Quote from: zubenelgenubi on 03/17/2021 06:42 pmWill 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 launchQuote from: Jansen on 04/07/2021 01:51 pmBooster 1058.7 is vertical
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].
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, dated April 1. (My bold)QuoteDuring 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].
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
Will there be a Static Fire before the launch of Starlink v1.0 Flight 25?The first stage will be 1049.9. Launch is currently scheduled for May 4.There was no Static Fire before the first ninth launch of a first stage.
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.
Will there be a Static Fire before the launch of Starlink v1.0 Flight 28?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: zubenelgenubi on 06/15/2021 05:34 amWill 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, now three days before scheduled launch.
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.
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.
Quote from: September 2 SpaceX tweetStatic fire test of Falcon 9 complete – targeting later this month for first West Coast Starlink mission, will announce a target date closer to launch.
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.
Will there be a Static Fire before the launch of Crew-3?
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.
Per the Crew-3 webcast, the vehicle for this mission will be doing a static fire tomorrow.
Quote from: zubenelgenubi on 11/05/2021 11:57 pmWill 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.YesQuote from: RocketLover0119 on 11/10/2021 10:06 pmPer the Crew-3 webcast, the vehicle for this mission will be doing a static fire tomorrow.
Quote from: zubenelgenubi on 10/21/2021 04:55 pmWill there be a Static Fire before the launch of Crew-3?Successful Static Fire on October 28.
Quote from: Alvian@IDN on 11/10/2021 10:25 pmQuote from: zubenelgenubi on 11/05/2021 11:57 pmWill 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.YesQuote from: RocketLover0119 on 11/10/2021 10:06 pmPer 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.
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.
Will there be a Static Fire before the launch of DART?
Quote from: zubenelgenubi on 11/08/2021 12:42 pmWill there be a Static Fire before the launch of DART?Successful Static Fire November 19 morning PST.Edit November 24 UTC: Successful launch and first stage ASDS landing.
Looks like no one posted about the wildfire DART's static fire test caused so posting the summary report:
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
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
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.
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.
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
Static fire test of Falcon 9 complete ahead of the Crew-4 mission to the @space_station
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
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/
Static fire test of Falcon 9 complete ahead of the Crew-5 mission to the @space_station