SpaceX Falcon 9 FT - ORBCOMM-2 - Dec. 21, 2015 (Return To Flight) DISCUSSION

[Tuts36]

Elon Musk ‏@elonmusk 37s38 seconds ago

Maybe some debris ingestion. Engine data looks ok. Will borescope tonight. This is one of the outer engines.

[meekGee]

I hate it when they're all secretive like that.

[1]

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.

[ZachS09]

Are there any photos or videos of the ORBCOMM-2 Static Fire #2?

[Lee Jay]

Engine 9 wasn't fluctuating.  It was so happy not to be in pieces on the bottom of the ocean, it was dancing.

[punder]

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. 

[meekGee]

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 ?!

[AncientU]

Short article

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2016/01/spacex-fire-up-falcon-9-first-stage-slc-40/

Short and sweet!
Nice article Chris.

[Johnnyhinbos]

It's only engine 9 going up. It's engine 6 coming back.

I see what you did there. Props!

[Dante80]

How about poor engine 8?..






..ok, I'll show myself out.

[1]

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.

[Lars-J]

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.

[psloss]

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.

[enzo]

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.

[meekGee]

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?

[Jarnis]

Are there any photos or videos of the ORBCOMM-2 Static Fire #2?

[Berkut]

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.

[somepitch]

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

[Dante80]

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?

[meekGee]

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...