-
#2260
by
ugordan
on 13 Jan, 2016 21:50
-
In addition to giving a chance to prove out changes to countdown procedures at LC40, it also proves the vehicle works so when they get it back to LC39A they'll know they have a good vehicle and won't be chasing vehicle problems while trying to make sure the pad is ready.
It doesn't quite work that way. In as complex a system as launch vehicles are, things can work fine one tanking cycle and then break the next one (e.g. the lightbulb effect). They could just as well be chasing problems at LC-39A because LC-40 testing "shook things loose".
-
#2261
by
JFARNS
on 13 Jan, 2016 22:01
-
In addition to giving a chance to prove out changes to countdown procedures at LC40, it also proves the vehicle works so when they get it back to LC39A they'll know they have a good vehicle and won't be chasing vehicle problems while trying to make sure the pad is ready.
Test as you fly … now test as you flew.
-
#2262
by
Kim Keller
on 13 Jan, 2016 23:02
-
but they could use the one assigned for 39A?
The 39A TE is built for a heavy. I'd doubt SLC-40 could support its use.
-
#2263
by
Johnnyhinbos
on 13 Jan, 2016 23:56
-
Okay people - I'm sure it means nothing, and certainly isn't related to F9-21 being installed on SLC-40 for a static fire tomorrow, but Go Quest has just left Port Canaveral...
-
#2264
by
rocx
on 14 Jan, 2016 00:02
-
Well, today is really a confusing day for this forum.
- The Orb-2 first stage (which I like to call Orbie) takes a wrong turn and ends up on a different launch pad
- SES-9 is delayed (because of Orbie? Or is Orbie there because of a problem with SES-9 or SLC-40?)
- Go Quest leaving port...
- the CRS-2 announcement is very soon but nobody know when or what
- the Air Force announcement (You get a contract! You get a contract! Everybody gets an engine development contract!!)
- and then there is still the aftershock of yesterday's KSC article.
-
#2265
by
mtakala24
on 14 Jan, 2016 00:15
-
One aspect of testing with OG2 booster: Saves cryo cycles of the SES9 booster.
Do we have an idea how many cycles Falcon 9 1st stage is certified for?
-
#2266
by
Lars-J
on 14 Jan, 2016 00:57
-
From the update thread:
It didn't clean up all that well.
I've been saying since the landing that the dark band around the lower part of the first stage isn't just "soot." 
Given they they really don't appear to have put much effort into cleaning things that are certainly soot covered (engines), I think you might be declaring victory just a *tad* early.
-
#2267
by
Bubbinski
on 14 Jan, 2016 01:37
-
I know SpaceX normally doesn't do webcasts for test firings, but are they going to make an exception for the firing of this returned stage?
-
#2268
by
georgegassaway
on 14 Jan, 2016 03:25
-
- and then there is still the aftershock of yesterday's KSC article.
Link to that article, please?
- George Gassaway
-
#2269
by
sojourner
on 14 Jan, 2016 05:32
-
-
#2270
by
Baranquilla
on 14 Jan, 2016 12:58
-
One aspect of testing with OG2 booster: Saves cryo cycles of the SES9 booster.
Do we have an idea how many cycles Falcon 9 1st stage is certified for?
We don't but we do know that Elon sees the cryo cycles as the largest problem for reuse-ability (wish I remembered where I read that).
Edit: We know a few things: Answers by Elon
Design life of Merlin 1D has been mentioned to be 40 “cycles”. Could you expand on what a “cycle” is? Is it just a start of the engine?
There is no meaningful limit. We would have to replace a few parts that experience thermal stress after 40 cycles, but the rest of the engine would be fine.
For the falcon 1:
"I am increasingly confident of the reusability of the Falcon I first stage. We will soon exceed 200 cryogenic pressure cycles on the first stage tank mounted in Vertical Test Stand 1 in Texas and there are no signs of fatigue. The stage is also constantly wet by the water deluge system and by melting ice from the LOX tank, but is showing no significant corrosion."
-
#2271
by
cscott
on 14 Jan, 2016 13:55
-
The problem I have with using the Orbcomm core to test out fueling procedures at LC40 is that it is missing its second stage! As far I know, the propellants on *both* stages need to be supercooled; it doesn't seem like a representative test if the cooling systems have only half the load. And the Orbcomm core is right there; why not "test as you fly"? Unless they are really really really sure that the problem they want to work on is specific to the first stage GSE, I guess...
-
#2272
by
Johnnyhinbos
on 14 Jan, 2016 14:11
-
Cross posting my wild speculation from another thread...
Okay, and I apologize for this in advance, but it's my Friday so I'm going to indulge myself...
Fact: There's a new hazard area off Cape Canaveral, possibly for a sub launched missile test.
Fact: The OC-2 SpaceX booster has been erected on SLC-40 for a static fire test possibly today.
Fact: The SpaceX logistics support vessel Go Quest headed out of Port Canaveral yesterday and headed due east until AIS (VHF) signal was lost.
Possible: The FCC temporary frequency license to SpaceX for the OC-2 launch may still be in effect
Speculation: Could SpaceX have the audacity to tru launching the OC-2 booster and go for another RTLS today? Absolutely not, right?
-
#2273
by
abaddon
on 14 Jan, 2016 14:20
-
I'm going to go a different way...
FACT: CRS-2 contract award winners will be announced today by NASA at 4pm.
FACT: SpaceX likely learned of this very recently... maybe a couple of days ago...
FACT: SpaceX scrambled to move the OC2 booster from 39a to SLC-40 for unknown reason on short notice and just so happened to target today for the static fire.
I think SpaceX wants to do the re-fire of the engines to "prove" the stage could be re-used (to some level of "prove"), to announce along with being awarded a CRS-2 contract, as a double PR whammy.
-
#2274
by
cscott
on 14 Jan, 2016 14:23
-
As I responded in another thread:
Nah. CRS-2 is about Dragon, the static fire is about F9R. Not really related at all, and SpaceX has plenty of "cool things" coming up to talk about, they don't need to scramble to manufacture more.
Heck, if they were desperate for cool points, just replay the landing video on a loop during the CRS2 press conference. The static fire isn't going to be nearly as impressive as that.
And no way they are going to launch the Orbcomm core today: SpaceX may be impulsive ("agile") but the FAA, FCC and range are not. You can't just launch rockets on a whim. (Especially not on the same day as a submarine-launched missle test!)
-
#2275
by
ugordan
on 14 Jan, 2016 14:23
-
FACT: SpaceX scrambled to move the OC2 booster from 39a to SLC-40 for unknown reason on short notice and just so happened to target today for the static fire.
Define "scrambled" and "short notice". Short notice to who? Us? Like they care.
-
#2276
by
Chris Bergin
on 14 Jan, 2016 14:29
-
In the future we'll have a dedicated thread tracking returned cores. I know the OG2 discussion thread isn't the best idea, but let's run with it. Actual specific updates can go into the update thread (I'll copy this across too).
But mid-afternoon is the target for the firing (remember, Static Fires are fluid targets anyway, but mid-afternoon ish is what I'm told).
-
#2277
by
abaddon
on 14 Jan, 2016 15:12
-
Define "scrambled" and "short notice". Short notice to who? Us? Like they care.
Well, I am inferring something here, but it is a reasonable inference. The plan to conduct the static fire at 39a was not announced that long ago, but just within the last few days they got the core set up quickly and are planning a static fire "mid-afternoon-ish" which just coincidentally is mere hours before the CRS-2 contract award. Where there's smoke... there's (a static) fire... okay that was pretty cheesy even for me.
-
#2278
by
ugordan
on 14 Jan, 2016 15:15
-
-
#2279
by
Mader Levap
on 14 Jan, 2016 15:21
-
I am astonished by amount of people saying "maybe they want to reuse or at least launch core already".
Doing it right now would be dumb, unsafe, idiotic and suicidal. Reality is not action movie where you can just do extremely visible thing requiring tons of paperwork without filling said requirements and said paperwork and get away with it.
Not to mention it goes against word of prophet Elon - he said clearly what he will do. He will not launch this core anywhere. It is impossible. Get over it, extremely unreasonable amazing peoples.
