-
#2320
by
Tuts36
on 16 Jan, 2016 00:48
-
Elon Musk @elonmusk 37s38 seconds ago
Maybe some debris ingestion. Engine data looks ok. Will borescope tonight. This is one of the outer engines.
-
#2321
by
meekGee
on 16 Jan, 2016 00:50
-
I hate it when they're all secretive like that.
-
#2322
by
1
on 16 Jan, 2016 00:52
-
Per Elon's tweet re: engine 9 showing thrust fluctuations, is that the center engine?
Yes.
Edit: Hmmmm...
Maybe some debris ingestion. Engine data looks ok. Will borescope tonight. This is one of the outer engines.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/688175650570547202
Then the User Guide is wrong...
It's only engine 9 going up. It's engine 6 coming back.
-
#2323
by
ZachS09
on 16 Jan, 2016 00:55
-
Are there any photos or videos of the ORBCOMM-2 Static Fire #2?
-
#2324
by
Lee Jay
on 16 Jan, 2016 01:02
-
Engine 9 wasn't fluctuating. It was so happy not to be in pieces on the bottom of the ocean, it was dancing.
-
#2325
by
punder
on 16 Jan, 2016 01:07
-
It's only engine 9 going up. It's engine 6 coming back.
After a couple of puzzled reads I FINALLY saw what you did there.
-
#2326
by
meekGee
on 16 Jan, 2016 01:20
-
It's only engine 9 going up. It's engine 6 coming back.
After a couple of puzzled reads I FINALLY saw what you did there.
... and you call yourself punder ?!
-
#2327
by
AncientU
on 16 Jan, 2016 01:22
-
-
#2328
by
Johnnyhinbos
on 16 Jan, 2016 01:26
-
It's only engine 9 going up. It's engine 6 coming back.
I see what you did there. Props!
-
#2329
by
Dante80
on 16 Jan, 2016 01:31
-
How about poor engine 8?..
..ok, I'll show myself out.
-
#2330
by
1
on 16 Jan, 2016 01:53
-
It's only engine 9 going up. It's engine 6 coming back.
After a couple of puzzled reads I FINALLY saw what you did there.
That'll happen.
On a somewhat serious note though, I'm continually grateful for Elon's relative transparency. This seems like such a simple thing to keep under wraps with a simple 'data looks good overall'; at least until they know more. Perhaps it's just my imagination; or it's just calculated PR. No matter; I definitely look forward to hearing about the boroscope results should they chose to share.
-
#2331
by
Lars-J
on 16 Jan, 2016 02:03
-
On a somewhat serious note though, I'm continually grateful for Elon's relative transparency. This seems like such a simple thing to keep under wraps with a simple 'data looks good overall'; at least until they know more.
Don't worry, in a few threads people will complain that SpaceX are too secretive again.
-
#2332
by
psloss
on 16 Jan, 2016 02:16
-
Hans Koenigsmann during Jason-3 briefing just now said that the static fire was performed.
They were looking at a 8pm Eastern T-0, so it fits! I'm not on the webcast, I assume he specifically said the returned OG2 core?
Yes they asked for an update on the static fire of the recovered first stage. But it was a guy in the audience that said that.
I couldn't see who it was, but I thought I heard him say (something to the effect that) he was watching some kind of (presumably private) feed...guessing that was someone with SpaceX. Not a big deal given that Mr. Musk has provided confirmation and details.
-
#2333
by
enzo
on 16 Jan, 2016 02:20
-
Could someone please interpret 'debris ingestion' for the layman. It sounds like something that could have happened during ascent. It's concerning that he jumped to that explanation. One would expect the rocket is designed to be free of debris-generating parts, fuel fully filtered, etc. Then again Merlin was actually qualification tested with a loose nut in the feed line, or so it was said.
-
#2334
by
meekGee
on 16 Jan, 2016 02:25
-
Fluctuations can be detectable/off-nominal but still within allowed limits. They didn't say if they aborted the test. In principle, if the stage fired to duration, it would have lifted off on a regular flight, right? Or do they use a more forgiving set of criteria when it's a static fire?
-
#2335
by
Jarnis
on 16 Jan, 2016 03:27
-
Are there any photos or videos of the ORBCOMM-2 Static Fire #2?
-
#2336
by
Berkut
on 16 Jan, 2016 03:34
-
-
#2337
by
somepitch
on 16 Jan, 2016 03:38
-
Short article
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2016/01/spacex-fire-up-falcon-9-first-stage-slc-40/
Chris, do you have any info on the duration of the SF burn you could share with us? From the video is appears to have gone on far longer than the usual ~3 seconds and according to the video description it was for 8 min which can't possibly be right since S1 cant even carry this much fuel.
Looks like it only lit for a second or so to me... ~1:50 mark in the video
-
#2338
by
Dante80
on 16 Jan, 2016 03:43
-
TEA-TEB at 1:42, and again at 1:46.
There is smoke (on the right side) right up until the end of the video, no idea whether that is residual or not though. Maybe a fire?
-
#2339
by
meekGee
on 16 Jan, 2016 04:10
-
Is this today's or is this the aborted one? Looks pretty brief. And the narrator didn't mention a previous try..
EDIT: Yes, I see the date in the title...
