No more static fire needed for moving to another pad?
Maybe the static fire happened in secrecy and no press was available at Canaveral at that time.
Quote from: king1999 on 01/02/2018 02:23 amNo more static fire needed for moving to another pad?I am surprised by that... seems like it would be a good idea.
Quote from: Lar on 01/02/2018 02:27 amQuote from: king1999 on 01/02/2018 02:23 amNo more static fire needed for moving to another pad?I am surprised by that... seems like it would be a good idea.And that would be why exactly?Static fire is about testing the vehicle. It is not about testing the pad. Falcon 9 rockets are not custom-built for a specific launchpad. And LC-40 had its testing done prior to and during the static fire of CRS-13 and its subsequent launch.
Quote from: woods170 on 01/02/2018 11:16 amQuote from: Lar on 01/02/2018 02:27 amQuote from: king1999 on 01/02/2018 02:23 amNo more static fire needed for moving to another pad?I am surprised by that... seems like it would be a good idea.And that would be why exactly?Static fire is about testing the vehicle. It is not about testing the pad. Falcon 9 rockets are not custom-built for a specific launchpad. And LC-40 had its testing done prior to and during the static fire of CRS-13 and its subsequent launch.Although the static fire itself may test the vehicle, the WDR that is part of the static fire tests the pad facilities and the vehicle to pad interfaces. SpaceX must be pretty confident of their ground processes at this point if they don't see a need to do a test after moving the vehicle between pads and a different TE.
The point of "fit checks" is to fit all vehicles to all launchers, not a vehicle to a launcher.
Quote from: Space Ghost 1962 on 01/02/2018 03:31 pmThe point of "fit checks" is to fit all vehicles to all launchers, not a vehicle to a launcher.Correct. And LC-40 already has had its "fit checks".
Static fire is about testing the vehicle. It is not about testing the pad.
Chris B states on the update thread that a 2nd SF is coming up potentially.....
Quote from: RocketLover0119 on 01/02/2018 06:21 pmChris B states on the update thread that a 2nd SF is coming up potentially....."Potential second static fire" is the post in the update thread.With no payload, all signs point toward that. But this could be a WDR with no engine firing. Or it could be fit checks for SLC-40 -- as it's only hosted one launch since being rebuilt and they could want to do part of a normal static fire flow with this booster to test connections and everything without actually static firing it again. Or it could be a static fire. We don't know yet.We've never had a booster static fire on one pad and then move to another pad. This all a new part of the puzzle that is launching a Falcon 9.EDIT: Remember, the entire static fire process of getting the vehicle connected to the pad, fueling it, and lighting the engines DOESN'T JUST TEST the rocket but all the pad systems, too. So while the booster might not NEED another static fire, they might still need to do some of these routine static fire elements to satisfy pre-mission pad readiness.
Does a full Wet Dress Rehearsal not require the same level of roadblocks needed for a Static Fire?