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

[OneSpeed]

Raptor?

The white smoke suggests Merlin kerolox fuel, not Raptor methalox.

[guckyfan]

Raptor?

The white smoke suggests Merlin kerolox fuel, not Raptor methalox.

The white smoke is water vapor, suggesting water cooling. So not a horizontal engine test stand.

[kevin-rf]

White Smoke? Does that mean Elon is the new Pope?

[Marslauncher]

I believe that test came from the same one I saw which is a single engine test stand away from the main rocket stand.

[Jet Black]

Raptor?

The white smoke suggests Merlin kerolox fuel, not Raptor methalox.

although the white stuff may well have been water vapour, what is the difference between kerolox smoke and methalox smoke?

[Herb Schaltegger]

Raptor?

The white smoke suggests Merlin kerolox fuel, not Raptor methalox.

although the white stuff may well have been water vapour, what is the difference between kerolox smoke and methalox smoke?

Kerosene is a much more molecularly-complex mixture of refined hydrocarbons. Methane is CH4. Methane exhaust will be pale blue/purple flame with very little soot, assuming the engine runs close to stoichiometric combustion. "Smoke" is generally carbon-based particulates made up of partially-combusted carbon and whatever else is in the fuel and/or oxidizer.

[Mike_1179]

Kerosene is a much more molecularly-complex mixture of refined hydrocarbons. Methane is CH4. Methane exhaust will be pale blue/purple flame with very little soot, assuming the engine runs close to stoichiometric combustion. "Smoke" is generally carbon-based particulates made up of partially-combusted carbon and whatever else is in the fuel and/or oxidizer.

I thought they don't run engines close to stochiometric - I believe they run fuel-rich to reduce combustion temperature.

[baldusi]

First oxidizer preburner elements of Raptor are going to get tested at Stennis. There will be a long time until Waco dos Raptor testing.

[oiorionsbelt]

There will be a long time until Waco dos Raptor testing.

Long like 10 years, long like 5years or long like 23 months?

[guckyfan]

First oxidizer preburner elements of Raptor are going to get tested at Stennis. There will be a long time until Waco dos Raptor testing.

Those tests have been done since April 2014 with a high test rate. Several tests per week on average. So why would it take a long time until a prototype Raptor will be ready?

[NovaSilisko]

Why would they be using McGregor's resources to test Raptor when they're trying to push for RTF?

[guckyfan]

Why would they be using McGregor's resources to test Raptor when they're trying to push for RTF?

I guess they would not. So this test was not Raptor IMO. I just doubt it will be a very long time before we see Raptor tests. So back to RTF and wait for confirmation of the first stage full duration tests.

[meekGee]

Unless something about this test said "raptor", why would we think that?

However, resource wise, the investigation is over, and I don't know how much commonality there is between the raptor r&d team and the people overseeing the full thrust Merlins on the F9.

The test stands should not be the same, since they don't want any problems with raptors to influence Merlin production flow.

[NovaSilisko]

Not just equipment, but people. I don't think there would be enough staff at McGregor to simultaneously be prepping for RTF testing AND running tests of raptor. Why are we talking about raptor, again?

[sdsds]

Is it reasonable to conclude here on Nov 1, with no confirmation of a successful test at McGregor, and no indication of a range reservation, that Dec 1 is no longer a possible launch date?

[Hywel1995]

Is it reasonable to conclude here on Nov 1, with no confirmation of a successful test at McGregor, and no indication of a range reservation, that Dec 1 is no longer a possible launch date?

At the moment there is no telling what is happening, must be analysing the stage and engines, no one knows but SpaceX at the moment. They will fire when ready.

I believe its a launch is doable before November is out, or at least the Falcon 9 at the hanger being readied for pad movement or on the Pad ready and waiting.

[Jarnis]

Is it reasonable to conclude here on Nov 1, with no confirmation of a successful test at McGregor, and no indication of a range reservation, that Dec 1 is no longer a possible launch date?

No. They have done launches with less than four weeks from stage testing to launch.

Granted, this being the first full thrust stage, with densified propellant, there may be pad-related gremlins to get rid of once the stage gets to Cape, so... who knows.

[wannamoonbase]

Is it reasonable to conclude here on Nov 1, with no confirmation of a successful test at McGregor, and no indication of a range reservation, that Dec 1 is no longer a possible launch date?

No. They have done launches with less than four weeks from stage testing to launch.

Granted, this being the first full thrust stage, with densified propellant, there may be pad-related gremlins to get rid of once the stage gets to Cape, so... who knows.

Before the loss of CRS-7 they were supposedly going to start launching the FT in September.  So they should have been very close to testing a FT stage at the end of June.  Here it is Nov 1 and they haven't.  There is over lapping work with the strut replacement, but the booster is on the test stand so the struts are done and there is not test yet.

They really need to settle on a vehicle configuration and start cranking out some launches.  The tinkering and refinements are nice and all but they to generate revenue, reduce backlog and show customers they can deliver.

Converting to FT is obviously requiring more work than SpaceX has indicated.  Simply because we haven't seen a test of the full FT stage yet.   I think the move to Full Thrust is at least equal if not greater than the RTF effort. 

[symbios]

You make it sound so "uncomplicated"...

Remember they have dedicated the mayor part of their entire staff to insure that this should not be able to happen again. They have gone thru all of the design of the entire rocket. They have done a complete rework of their quality control and assurance.

I can easily imagine Elon Musk banging his fist in the table saying "How the did this happen!!! This should never be able to happen again!!!" then turning the whole company upside down to insure that it is so. I can not imagine Elon taking failure lightly. This has to have cost SpaceX hundreds of millions of dollars and delayed all their plans at least 6 month.

Is it reasonable to conclude here on Nov 1, with no confirmation of a successful test at McGregor, and no indication of a range reservation, that Dec 1 is no longer a possible launch date?

No. They have done launches with less than four weeks from stage testing to launch.

Granted, this being the first full thrust stage, with densified propellant, there may be pad-related gremlins to get rid of once the stage gets to Cape, so... who knows.

Before the loss of CRS-7 they were supposedly going to start launching the FT in September.  So they should have been very close to testing a FT stage at the end of June.  Here it is Nov 1 and they haven't.  There is over lapping work with the strut replacement, but the booster is on the test stand so the struts are done and there is not test yet.

They really need to settle on a vehicle configuration and start cranking out some launches.  The tinkering and refinements are nice and all but they to generate revenue, reduce backlog and show customers they can deliver.

Converting to FT is obviously requiring more work than SpaceX has indicated.  Simply because we haven't seen a test of the full FT stage yet.   I think the move to Full Thrust is at least equal if not greater than the RTF effort.

[SWGlassPit]

Raptor?

The white smoke suggests Merlin kerolox fuel, not Raptor methalox.

although the white stuff may well have been water vapour, what is the difference between kerolox smoke and methalox smoke?

Kerosene is a much more molecularly-complex mixture of refined hydrocarbons. Methane is CH4. Methane exhaust will be pale blue/purple flame with very little soot, assuming the engine runs close to stoichiometric combustion. "Smoke" is generally carbon-based particulates made up of partially-combusted carbon and whatever else is in the fuel and/or oxidizer.

Herb what does "green" flame tell you with Methane/oxygen?

Green flame usually indicates the presence of copper or boron in the combustion process.  The TEA/TEB start package produces a green flame from the boron (triethylborane).