SpaceX Falcon 9 / Dragon 2 : SpX-DM1 : March 2, 2019 : DISCUSSION

[drnscr]

(Same picture, just cropped from the full size Twitter version)

Will they demate the Dragon from the booster or will they do the static fire with Dragon on top? This is supposed to be a human rated booster after all, so not doing the static fire with Dragon sends an ominous signal...

The current plan is:
1. fit checks (what they're starting to do now),
2. a dry launch rehearsal (all steps of the launch process except for loading fuel),
3. a wet dress rehearsal (all steps of launch process, including loading fuel, but excluding engine ignition),
4. static fire (all steps of launch process except releasing the launch clamps), and
5. launch.

Presumably they will remove the Crew Dragon for the static fire, I would. Assuming that a Crew-Dragon-less static fire will be the standard procedure, it would also make sense to do it that way for the first run as well.

Is that authoritative?
Has NASA ever done a static fire on a crew vehicle?  (Launch aborts don't count.)
Do we know if NASA allowing SpaceX to do static fires with the Crew Dragon Falcon 9s, with or without the capsule present?
If they do, my impression would be ASAP among others would argue for SpaceX to leave the capsule on, increasing realism at the cost of increased risk, because they like burning down all risks before the astronauts arrive.

Has NASA ever done a static fire on a crew vehicle?  Shuttle Flight Readiness Firings

[whitelancer64]

(Same picture, just cropped from the full size Twitter version)

Will they demate the Dragon from the booster or will they do the static fire with Dragon on top? This is supposed to be a human rated booster after all, so not doing the static fire with Dragon sends an ominous signal...

The current plan is:
1. fit checks (what they're starting to do now),
2. a dry launch rehearsal (all steps of the launch process except for loading fuel),
3. a wet dress rehearsal (all steps of launch process, including loading fuel, but excluding engine ignition),
4. static fire (all steps of launch process except releasing the launch clamps), and
5. launch.

Presumably they will remove the Crew Dragon for the static fire, I would. Assuming that a Crew-Dragon-less static fire will be the standard procedure, it would also make sense to do it that way for the first run as well.

Is that authoritative?
Has NASA ever done a static fire on a crew vehicle?  (Launch aborts don't count.)
Do we know if NASA allowing SpaceX to do static fires with the Crew Dragon Falcon 9s, with or without the capsule present?
If they do, my impression would be ASAP among others would argue for SpaceX to leave the capsule on, increasing realism at the cost of increased risk, because they like burning down all risks before the astronauts arrive.

Per Teslarati, which is usually reliable. (Eric Ralph is vaporcobra here on NSF)

"A little over three weeks away from the milestone mission’s launch, SpaceX has – even more importantly – rolled Pad 39A’s transporter/erector (T/E) into an on-site hangar, where Falcon 9 B1051 and Crew Dragon C201 are awaiting final integration and fit checks prior to a series of careful dress rehearsals including a dry (mission) rehearsal, a wet rehearsal (WDR), and an on-pad static fire."

https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-orbit-ready-crew-dragon-pad-39a-falcon-9-testing/

[Mammutti]

https://twitter.com/SpaceflightNow/status/1080953849203052545

https://twitter.com/EmreKelly/status/1080961376733007872

[jpo234]

(Same picture, just cropped from the full size Twitter version)

Will they demate the Dragon from the booster or will they do the static fire with Dragon on top? This is supposed to be a human rated booster after all, so not doing the static fire with Dragon sends an ominous signal...

The current plan is:
1. fit checks (what they're starting to do now),
2. a dry launch rehearsal (all steps of the launch process except for loading fuel),
3. a wet dress rehearsal (all steps of launch process, including loading fuel, but excluding engine ignition),
4. static fire (all steps of launch process except releasing the launch clamps), and
5. launch.

Presumably they will remove the Crew Dragon for the static fire, I would. Assuming that a Crew-Dragon-less static fire will be the standard procedure, it would also make sense to do it that way for the first run as well.

Is that authoritative?
Has NASA ever done a static fire on a crew vehicle?  (Launch aborts don't count.)
Do we know if NASA allowing SpaceX to do static fires with the Crew Dragon Falcon 9s, with or without the capsule present?
If they do, my impression would be ASAP among others would argue for SpaceX to leave the capsule on, increasing realism at the cost of increased risk, because they like burning down all risks before the astronauts arrive.

Summary: We don't know yet.

[russianhalo117]

(Same picture, just cropped from the full size Twitter version)

Will they demate the Dragon from the booster or will they do the static fire with Dragon on top? This is supposed to be a human rated booster after all, so not doing the static fire with Dragon sends an ominous signal...

The current plan is:
1. fit checks (what they're starting to do now),
2. a dry launch rehearsal (all steps of the launch process except for loading fuel),
3. a wet dress rehearsal (all steps of launch process, including loading fuel, but excluding engine ignition),
4. static fire (all steps of launch process except releasing the launch clamps), and
5. launch.

Presumably they will remove the Crew Dragon for the static fire, I would. Assuming that a Crew-Dragon-less static fire will be the standard procedure, it would also make sense to do it that way for the first run as well.

Is that authoritative?
Has NASA ever done a static fire on a crew vehicle?  (Launch aborts don't count.)
Do we know if NASA allowing SpaceX to do static fires with the Crew Dragon Falcon 9s, with or without the capsule present?
If they do, my impression would be ASAP among others would argue for SpaceX to leave the capsule on, increasing realism at the cost of increased risk, because they like burning down all risks before the astronauts arrive.

Summary: We don't know yet.

Yes Flight Readiness Firing (static fire) on STS-1 Columbia.

[DaveS]

(Same picture, just cropped from the full size Twitter version)

Will they demate the Dragon from the booster or will they do the static fire with Dragon on top? This is supposed to be a human rated booster after all, so not doing the static fire with Dragon sends an ominous signal...

The current plan is:
1. fit checks (what they're starting to do now),
2. a dry launch rehearsal (all steps of the launch process except for loading fuel),
3. a wet dress rehearsal (all steps of launch process, including loading fuel, but excluding engine ignition),
4. static fire (all steps of launch process except releasing the launch clamps), and
5. launch.

Presumably they will remove the Crew Dragon for the static fire, I would. Assuming that a Crew-Dragon-less static fire will be the standard procedure, it would also make sense to do it that way for the first run as well.

Is that authoritative?
Has NASA ever done a static fire on a crew vehicle?  (Launch aborts don't count.)
Do we know if NASA allowing SpaceX to do static fires with the Crew Dragon Falcon 9s, with or without the capsule present?
If they do, my impression would be ASAP among others would argue for SpaceX to leave the capsule on, increasing realism at the cost of increased risk, because they like burning down all risks before the astronauts arrive.

Summary: We don't know yet.

Yes Flight Readiness Firing (static fire) on STS-1 Columbia.

And all the other orbiters. The FRF was a required test for all new orbiters to pass before they were allowed to fly for the first time. Challenger and Discovery even underwent two FRFs each for various reasons (Challenger due to hydrogen leaks and Discovery to recertify procedures and hardware prior to RTF after STS-51L).

[RonM]

(Same picture, just cropped from the full size Twitter version)

Will they demate the Dragon from the booster or will they do the static fire with Dragon on top? This is supposed to be a human rated booster after all, so not doing the static fire with Dragon sends an ominous signal...

The current plan is:
1. fit checks (what they're starting to do now),
2. a dry launch rehearsal (all steps of the launch process except for loading fuel),
3. a wet dress rehearsal (all steps of launch process, including loading fuel, but excluding engine ignition),
4. static fire (all steps of launch process except releasing the launch clamps), and
5. launch.

Presumably they will remove the Crew Dragon for the static fire, I would. Assuming that a Crew-Dragon-less static fire will be the standard procedure, it would also make sense to do it that way for the first run as well.

Better remove Crew Dragon before the wet launch rehearsal. AMOS-6 accident was during fueling for the static fire.

[soltasto]

(Same picture, just cropped from the full size Twitter version)

Will they demate the Dragon from the booster or will they do the static fire with Dragon on top? This is supposed to be a human rated booster after all, so not doing the static fire with Dragon sends an ominous signal...

The current plan is:
1. fit checks (what they're starting to do now),
2. a dry launch rehearsal (all steps of the launch process except for loading fuel),
3. a wet dress rehearsal (all steps of launch process, including loading fuel, but excluding engine ignition),
4. static fire (all steps of launch process except releasing the launch clamps), and
5. launch.

Presumably they will remove the Crew Dragon for the static fire, I would. Assuming that a Crew-Dragon-less static fire will be the standard procedure, it would also make sense to do it that way for the first run as well.

Better remove Crew Dragon before the wet launch rehearsal. AMOS-6 accident was during fueling for the static fire.

I bet they will leave it on since if it explodes losing that Dragon isn't going to be the biggest problem.

[joek]

Will they demate the Dragon from the booster or will they do the static fire with Dragon on top? This is supposed to be a human rated booster after all, so not doing the static fire with Dragon sends an ominous signal...

The current plan is:
1. fit checks (what they're starting to do now),
2. a dry launch rehearsal (all steps of the launch process except for loading fuel),
3. a wet dress rehearsal (all steps of launch process, including loading fuel, but excluding engine ignition),
4. static fire (all steps of launch process except releasing the launch clamps), and
5. launch.

Presumably they will remove the Crew Dragon for the static fire, I would. Assuming that a Crew-Dragon-less static fire will be the standard procedure, it would also make sense to do it that way for the first run as well.

Or they might add a couple steps... complete 3-4 without Dragon; repeat 3-4 with Dragon.  Also, unless they demate Dragon at an intermediate point, that implies Dragon is loaded with hypergols throughout those steps.  That may complicate some earlier steps.

[mme]

...

Presumably they will remove the Crew Dragon for the static fire, I would. Assuming that a Crew-Dragon-less static fire will be the standard procedure, it would also make sense to do it that way for the first run as well.

Better remove Crew Dragon before the wet launch rehearsal. AMOS-6 accident was during fueling for the static fire.

They plan to fuel it with astronauts onboard so they better be confident that the AMOS-6 failures are behind them.

[joek]

They plan to fuel it with astronauts onboard so they better be confident that the AMOS-6 failures are behind them.

Every fuel load cycle helps meet ASAP/NASA's requirements, reduce risk and assuage concerns, regardless of whether a payload is attached.  IIRC the requirement specific to risk reduction for the new COPV is 6-7 cycles (not launches)?  Not sure where we are (or will be) on that count before the final DM1 load & launch.  Anyone keeping count?

[joek]

They plan to fuel it with astronauts onboard so they better be confident that the AMOS-6 failures are behind them.

True, and I am sure SpaceX is confident of the design.  At the risk of overstating the obvious... the way to build confidence in the design is to test it... and just because you are confident of X does not necessarily warrant risking X+Y.

In any case, from the perspective of an integrated stack, the new variable is Dragon.  I expect we will see it demated at some point prior after a number of LV+Dragon checks have been performed and prior to launch for hypergol loading (and likely a few other final Dragon checks).

[Alexphysics]

They plan to fuel it with astronauts onboard so they better be confident that the AMOS-6 failures are behind them.

Every fuel load cycle helps meet ASAP/NASA's requirements, reduce risk and assuage concerns, regardless of whether a payload is attached.  IIRC the requirement specific to risk reduction for the new COPV is 6-7 cycles (not launches)?  Not sure where we are (or will be) on that count before the final DM1 load & launch.  Anyone keeping count?

Oh great... this again... 7 missions with new COPV's and 5 loading cycles that will be on the Static Fire and launch of DM-1 and IFA and the static fire for DM-2. The missions with the new COPV's can be on whatever mission they want, the loading cycles for crewed misions are different than for uncrewed ones so the process will be qualified using the 5 opportunities I mentioned earlier.

[envy887]

They plan to fuel it with astronauts onboard so they better be confident that the AMOS-6 failures are behind them.

Every fuel load cycle helps meet ASAP/NASA's requirements, reduce risk and assuage concerns, regardless of whether a payload is attached.  IIRC the requirement specific to risk reduction for the new COPV is 6-7 cycles (not launches)?  Not sure where we are (or will be) on that count before the final DM1 load & launch.  Anyone keeping count?

Oh great... this again... 7 missions with new COPV's and 5 loading cycles that will be on the Static Fire and launch of DM-1 and IFA and the static fire for DM-2. The missions with the new COPV's can be on whatever mission they want, the loading cycles for crewed misions are different than for uncrewed ones so the process will be qualified using the 5 opportunities I mentioned earlier.

WDRs should count as additional fueling cycles for COPV and load-and-go purposes, right? That would give them 3 cycles on just this mission

[Mike_1179]

 If they are doing fit checks, they’re going to want to ensure that the crew access arm / white room mates with the Dragon appropriately. When filled with cold prop, the metal structure of the Falcon 9 can shrink.

At some point, won’t they have to fill it with cold stuff then swing the arm onto a Dragon to make sure it fits? If they plan to do it before the DM-1 launch countdown, they’ll have to fuel it at least once with a Dragon on top.

[Scylla]

Blown up from the tweet from Emre Kelly upthread.

New top to the TEL.
Any idea what the new bits do?

[Steven Pietrobon]

For some reason, you can see a ghostly image of the photographer during the lift of Falcon 9.

SpaceX - First Ever Crew Dragon Lift - DM-1 01-03-2019

USLaunchReport
Published on Jan 3, 2019

Speed has been doubled. Sorry for picture quality, 10 miles thru haze at sunset. Very Excited to see Crew Dragon attached to Falcon 9. The lift was done for a fit test.

youtube.com/watch?v=o_Wt9tpfyAs

[Steven Pietrobon]

Better remove Crew Dragon before the wet launch rehearsal. AMOS-6 accident was during fueling for the static fire.

Unlike AMOS 6, Dragon 2 can perform a pad abort if the vehicle were to fail during fuelling or the test fire. Thus, if SpaceX were to have a bad day, they can perform a valuable test of the Dragon 2 abort system. The Soyuz abort system got plenty of these "tests" done while being flown on Proton and N-1!

[1]

For some reason, you can see a ghostly image of the photographer during the lift of Falcon 9.

Looks like they're shooting from behind a window. Inside a vehicle, perhaps?

I can hardly wait to see the official pics of this on the pad.

[catdlr]

For some reason, you can see a ghostly image of the photographer during the lift of Falcon 9.

Looks like they're shooting from behind a window. Inside a vehicle, perhaps?

I can hardly wait to see the official pics of this on the pad.

Yea almost looks like they shot this thru a vehicle window who's tinting has faded to a purplish color.