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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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>