SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 - SES-8 - DISCUSSION THREAD

[IRobot]

There are some obvious advantages of doing the static fire with the payload on: cost and time. The question is if it pays off the risk.

I hate to be picky, but what cost and time? The time to attach the payload should be the same if it was done before or after the static fire test.

No because for non-pad integration you need to move the vehicle back to the VAB.

[Jim]

It may not be practical yet, but it's conceivable. And if you are looking to drive out cost from your process flow, one less rollback/rollout seems like it might save a bit.

payloads do not want to be involved with static fire, regardless of savings.  It is an unnecessary risk for them.

Static fires will be a thing of the past and eventually so will WDR's

edited.

[Garrett]

There are some obvious advantages of doing the static fire with the payload on: cost and time. The question is if it pays off the risk.

I hate to be picky, but what cost and time? The time to attach the payload should be the same if it was done before or after the static fire test.

No because for non-pad integration you need to move the vehicle back to the VAB.

Apart from being somewhat off topic (better suited to general F9 thread), most of this discussion is irrelevant. The comments by Jim and others on the previous two/three pages suggest that SpaceX will very likely eliminate WDR's and static fires very soon (my guess: within a year), with the usual caveat that everything will depend on multiple successful launches.

[Kabloona]

But the bigger question is, will they at some point eliminate standalone WDR and go straight to static fire?

It would be the other way around.  Static fire will be eliminated first

Apparently not.

[Garrett]

But the bigger question is, will they at some point eliminate standalone WDR and go straight to static fire?

It would be the other way around.  Static fire will be eliminated first

Apparently not.

The situation seems ambiguous. It's a joint WDR/static fire test, though of course all static fire tests include, by default, a WDR. We'll have to see the process flow for the next few launches to see if the stand alone WDR is consistently eliminated in favour of a static fire.

[Jim]

But the bigger question is, will they at some point eliminate standalone WDR and go straight to static fire?

It would be the other way around.  Static fire will be eliminated first

Apparently not.

I missed the word "standalone"

[aero]

With launch a week away, what is the schedule for static fire and launch readiness review?

[WHAP]

Last I heard static fire was tomorrow, but I don't have a reference to cite.

[Comga]

Last I heard static fire was tomorrow, but I don't have a reference to cite.

orionsbelt posted that there is an update in L2. for those who have subscribed.

[beancounter]

Will they, won't they, will they, won't they, will they launch on the 25th???     
Go SpaceX and SES-8

[Comga]

Mission patch shown in http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32783.msg1121444#msg1121444
No four leaf clover!
Edit: It is there, below the solar panel. Green on Blue, low contrast.
My bad!

[AS-503]

Mission patch shown in http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32783.msg1121444#msg1121444
No four leaf clover!
Edit: It is there, below the solar panel. Green on Blue, low contrast.
My bad!

Plus it's *lucky* Falcon 9 flight number 7 (jinx) 
Although everyone around here knows that it is really flight 2 (un-jinx) 

[QuantumG]

SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 WDR and Hot Fire for SES-8 mission scrubbed for the day. Will make another attempt on Thursday. - Chris on Twitter 

[tigerade]

Was the scrub due to weather?

[Jcc]

Here is the Falcon sans payload.
Does the base of the T/E look wide enough for a FH?
I know they were not supposed to be preparing SLC-40 for FH, but if that is the rebuilt T/E for F9 1.1, it looks as wide as the one at Vandenburg at the base.

[Lars_J]

Here is the Falcon sans payload.
Does the base of the T/E look wide enough for a FH?
I know they were not supposed to be preparing SLC-40 for FH, but if that is the rebuilt T/E for F9 1.1, it looks as wide as the one at Vandenburg at the base.

It might be wide enough, but it doesn't look as strong as the VAFB T/E. And the base width is partially an optical illusion, as you can see from the reverse angle in the top picture below.
(the first picture is the SLC-40 T/E without the top piece, padrat posted it a while back)

[Chris Bergin]

SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 WDR and Hot Fire for SES-8 mission scrubbed for the day. Will make another attempt on Thursday. - Chris on Twitter 

Which are just reposts of posts made in the UPDATE thread:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32783.30

Twitter is never going to be somewhere I post something that isn't already on here, but I know a lot of people are still confused about the difference between an UPDATE thread and a DISCUSSION thread....and more so the value of the L2 SpaceX section.

[QuantumG]

Where'd you say the second part of your tweet on that thread?

Obviously, if it's only on L2 I don't repeat it.

[Chris Bergin]

Where'd you say the second part of your tweet on that thread?

Obviously, if it's only on L2 I don't repeat it.

Oh crap! I didn't mention next attempt Thursday on the thread, did I! Edited that in. Big no no for me to give more to Twitter than on the forum!

Doesn't help that I'm in an INCREDIBLY grumpy mood! (tired)

Now I've got to send myself a moderator note for going off topic.

[woods170]

Where'd you say the second part of your tweet on that thread?

Obviously, if it's only on L2 I don't repeat it.

Oh crap! I didn't mention next attempt Thursday on the thread, did I! Edited that in. Big no no for me to give more to Twitter than on the forum!

Doesn't help that I'm in an INCREDIBLY grumpy mood! (tired)

Now I've got to send myself a moderator note for going off topic.

Send yourself to bed. Much better.