-
#2180
by
rcoppola
on 13 Jan, 2016 01:13
-
Could they just immediately erect it on LC-40, do a static fire say Thursday or Friday, then just take it strait back to LC-39A?
The core being at LC-39A wasn't only about the SF, the plan was to use it to help qualify the TE, Pad, hold-downs, fueling, connections, etc..
-
#2181
by
cscott
on 13 Jan, 2016 01:42
-
Good call moving this to the discussion area mods.
I did before I posted. No further evidence was given.
That's why I posted that it was claimed to be moving there. I shouldn't have done it in the update thread though.
Any ideas what is happening? Maybe this is an old one from the landing pad to LC-39A?
The rocket is still dirty and it is posted by someone who's only other post was one asking if they had been banned. I think this is just an old picture of it going to LC39A that someone reposted for the hell of it.
I agree with @intrepidpursuit. I think we should confirm that this photo is legit before going crazy with speculation---especially since, as far as we know, there's not room for another core in LC40 right now.
-
#2182
by
Dante80
on 13 Jan, 2016 02:34
-
Guys, Chris confirmed this separately.
Yeah, had it confirmed (I asked) it's going to SLC-40. We're not sure why they opted against the original plan for 39A.
-
#2183
by
luinil
on 13 Jan, 2016 03:22
-
If they use the pad for testing, they can't use it very long as there is a launch coming, explaining the "hurry"
That does not explain why they test it before the launch, they could have waited.
-
#2184
by
Llian Rhydderch
on 13 Jan, 2016 03:40
-
If they use the pad for testing, they can't use it very long as there is a launch coming, explaining the "hurry"
That does not explain why they test it before the launch, they could have waited.
Well, since we're speculating...
Perhaps they tested the first stage all they could in LC 39A without GSE (or all they want to right now), and the next logical step is the "integration test" of the stage with the GSE and propellants of a wet dress rehearsal, and if those steps all show green, a static fire test.
In other words, the next step in the sort of testing that SpaceX chooses to do with this first recovered F9 first stage just now is a WDR leading to a static fire test. And LC40 is just the place to do that with the recently qualified chilled propellants and GSE for a F9FT. So, do it!
-
#2185
by
su27k
on 13 Jan, 2016 04:01
-
If they use the pad for testing, they can't use it very long as there is a launch coming, explaining the "hurry"
That does not explain why they test it before the launch, they could have waited.
Mundane speculation: additional work is needed on LC39A HIF, having a core there is holding up the construction schedule
Wild speculation: They need the LC39A HIF space for something else, something big...
-
#2186
by
abaddon
on 13 Jan, 2016 04:02
-
Not just "a" F9FT... This F9FT! Well, most of it...
-
#2187
by
meekGee
on 13 Jan, 2016 04:14
-
If they use the pad for testing, they can't use it very long as there is a launch coming, explaining the "hurry"
That does not explain why they test it before the launch, they could have waited.
Exactly. They could have waited for 39A to be ready, or for 40 after SES.
Maybe 40 is scheduled for such a rapid fire set of launches that better now than later...
I like it when it gets unpredictable like that
-
#2188
by
Flying Beaver
on 13 Jan, 2016 04:33
-
If they use the pad for testing, they can't use it very long as there is a launch coming, explaining the "hurry"
That does not explain why they test it before the launch, they could have waited.
Mundane speculation: additional work is needed on LC39A HIF, having a core there is holding up the construction schedule
Wild speculation: They need the LC39A HIF space for something else, something big...
But as I said, SX could do a static fire on this stage as early as tomorrow morning, then they could have it back at LC39A by evening, theoretically.
-
#2189
by
Hauerg
on 13 Jan, 2016 04:40
-
If they use the pad for testing, they can't use it very long as there is a launch coming, explaining the "hurry"
That does not explain why they test it before the launch, they could have waited.
If they need LC40 they can NOT wait. The next two launches from there are planned within an almost record beating timespan.
Edit: typo
-
#2190
by
Flying Beaver
on 13 Jan, 2016 04:45
-
If they use the pad for testing, they can't use it very long as there is a launch coming, explaining the "hurry"
That does not explain why they test it before the launch, they could have waited.
If they need LC40 they can NOT wait. The next two launches from there are planned within an almost record beating timespantime.
Well I can imagine why Elon might want to have the test done ASAP.
The tweeting possibility's read quite well.
'Successful static fire of landed first stage at the Cape. Data looks good.
Confirms engines good for reflight of future stages'
xD
-
#2191
by
bstrong
on 13 Jan, 2016 05:11
-
Purely hypothetically: if they did want to reuse the stage for SES-9, would anyone else have a say in the matter? The range? FAA?
-
#2192
by
HMXHMX
on 13 Jan, 2016 05:15
-
Pure speculation: showing they can reuse the first stages may have some credibility enhancement to their CRS II bid, should they have offered NASA a discount for these stages as part of future CRS II pricing?
-
#2193
by
Hauerg
on 13 Jan, 2016 05:41
-
Purely hypothetically: if they did want to reuse the stage for SES-9, would anyone else have a say in the matter? The range? FAA?
This sounds insane.
But then again ...
No.
-
#2194
by
oiorionsbelt
on 13 Jan, 2016 05:47
-
Pure speculation: showing they can reuse the first stages may have some credibility enhancement to their CRS II bid, should they have offered NASA a discount for these stages as part of future CRS II pricing?
By now they must know what it takes to "refurbish" the Dragon 1's from CRS 1. I've been wondering if they'll bid/use them for CRS 2. It solves the whole CBM docking issue.
-
#2195
by
Jarnis
on 13 Jan, 2016 05:48
-
Purely hypothetically: if they did want to reuse the stage for SES-9, would anyone else have a say in the matter? The range? FAA?
This sounds insane.
But then again ...
No.
Seconded. Insane. IF this were anyone other than SpaceX, I would say "impossible".
But... this being SpaceX, they seem to have left "impossible" out of their vocabulary, so "extremely unlikely" will have to do.
...but I'd say it won't happen based on Elon's earlier statement that they want to keep this stage and not re-fly it, due to the historical nature of being the first they recovered.
So most likely explanation is that they want to static fire it on SLC40 in a hurry, perhaps because their schedule has room for it before SES-9.
-
#2196
by
dorkmo
on 13 Jan, 2016 06:06
-
but wouldn't the first recovered
and reflown rocket be even more historical???
-
#2197
by
bstrong
on 13 Jan, 2016 06:27
-
I think the real question is whether SES would go for it. They've talked about wanting to be the first to use the same stage twice, but that's not what this would be. And they've made it clear they want this satellite in operation ASAP, so it's hard to see them taking a risk on a stage that hasn't even had time to be fully analyzed.
On the other hand, they seem to care a lot about Ariane 6 being a competitive launcher, and watching the #EUSpacePolicy16 tweets, it seems like there is a lively debate going on behind the scenes regarding reusability. SES may see this as an opportunity to force the hand of the "wait and see" crowd.
But if I had to put money on it, I'd go with ugordon's option that they just want to do some more testing on the subcooling GSE, so they don't have a repeat of the issues from the OG-2 static fire.
-
#2198
by
meekGee
on 13 Jan, 2016 06:42
-
I hope they don't.
When things are going well, you get carried away, and take unnecessary risks.
They have a stage. They will soon have many more. They should use them wisely.
I also want so see something crazy like this being tried successfully, but it's just unnecessary risk. One step at a time, things are going so well...
I'm buying the explanation that the only time to squeeze this in on SLC40 is asap, since it's booked solid for the next two months.
Why they're not waiting for 39-A, that I still can't understand.
-
#2199
by
HIP2BSQRE
on 13 Jan, 2016 06:51
-
What is the hurry? Even is the pad is booked solid for the next 3 - 6 months - put the stage in storage.
