SpaceX Falcon 9 : CRS-11 : June 3, 2017 : DISCUSSION

[tvg98]

Has the static Fire occurred with the Dragon on top?

They've never done a static fire with a payload on top since Amos-6.

The picture on the update thread is a little grainy, but it sure looks like the Dragon is, in fact on the rocket.

Edit to add: I looked again and now I'm not sure.  Anybody?

https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/status/868779582152953856

By looking at this picture, it's pretty clear that Dragon is not mated to the second stage.

[yokem55]

Looks like the static fire could have touched off a brush fire:

#USFWS firefighters are responding to a new wildfire at Merritt Island NWR caused by a static rocket test fire  #FLfire

https://twitter.com/USFWSFireSE/status/868888121596932099

So, hot debris, blown out of the flame trench set this off? Or would the hot exhaust itself do this? I would think the water in the trench would be enough to cool off the exhaust before any grass areas would be able to catch fire...

[cppetrie]

This picture puts the grass fire in perspective:

F9/CRS11: Fire crew sent to apparent grass fire in/near pad 39A in wake of hot-fire test; SpaceX reports good test, targeting 6/1 launch pic.twitter.com/v9Vxx5Pq5Z

https://twitter.com/cbs_spacenews/status/868872933699182594

Based on this photo that fire looks to be more than a half mile away if not farther. Seems incredibly unlikely is was hot exhaust itself that started it. Hot debris maybe. Even that seems unlikely. Seems like pure coincidence that it started after hot fire but perhaps we'll get confirmation either way at some point.

[DigitalMan]

This picture puts the grass fire in perspective:

F9/CRS11: Fire crew sent to apparent grass fire in/near pad 39A in wake of hot-fire test; SpaceX reports good test, targeting 6/1 launch pic.twitter.com/v9Vxx5Pq5Z

https://twitter.com/cbs_spacenews/status/868872933699182594

Based on this photo that fire looks to be more than a half mile away if not farther. Seems incredibly unlikely is was hot exhaust itself that started it. Hot debris maybe. Even that seems unlikely. Seems like pure coincidence that it started after hot fire but perhaps we'll get confirmation either way at some point.

There had been some fires in central Florida the past couple days

[Flying Beaver]

This picture puts the grass fire in perspective:

F9/CRS11: Fire crew sent to apparent grass fire in/near pad 39A in wake of hot-fire test; SpaceX reports good test, targeting 6/1 launch pic.twitter.com/v9Vxx5Pq5Z

https://twitter.com/cbs_spacenews/status/868872933699182594

Based on this photo that fire looks to be more than a half mile away if not farther. Seems incredibly unlikely is was hot exhaust itself that started it. Hot debris maybe. Even that seems unlikely. Seems like pure coincidence that it started after hot fire but perhaps we'll get confirmation either way at some point.

Example of flaming debris from the Echostar 23 launch at 39A.
Would expect new procedure (at least for summer) will be a full clean out prior to launch/static fire.

[cppetrie]

This picture puts the grass fire in perspective:

F9/CRS11: Fire crew sent to apparent grass fire in/near pad 39A in wake of hot-fire test; SpaceX reports good test, targeting 6/1 launch pic.twitter.com/v9Vxx5Pq5Z

https://twitter.com/cbs_spacenews/status/868872933699182594

Based on this photo that fire looks to be more than a half mile away if not farther. Seems incredibly unlikely is was hot exhaust itself that started it. Hot debris maybe. Even that seems unlikely. Seems like pure coincidence that it started after hot fire but perhaps we'll get confirmation either way at some point.

Example of flaming debris from the Echostar 23 launch at 39A.
Would expect new procedure (at least for summer) will be a full clean out prior to launch/static fire.

I never doubted that hot debris would be ejected from the flame trench. It just seems like the scale doesn't fit with having started that fire. The mouth of the flame trench is about 1/4 of a mile from the perimeter of the pad site. It is hard to get perspective from both the original photo and the gif you attached but that fire is close to a mile from from the pad and the debris visible in that clip has already reached the highest point of its ballistic arc. It just doesn't seem likely that a piece of debris would have gotten blown more than a half mile away. On the other hand, I don't know what else would have caused it so it might very well have been the static fire test. I guess my point is that the two things occurred in somewhat close proximity of location and time, and all sources just immediately attributed the cause to the static fire. Correlation is not causation. In any case, a precautionary clean-out seems like a reasonable course of action, and I'm glad the fire was quickly contained.

Edit: typo

[DaveS]

This picture puts the grass fire in perspective:

F9/CRS11: Fire crew sent to apparent grass fire in/near pad 39A in wake of hot-fire test; SpaceX reports good test, targeting 6/1 launch pic.twitter.com/v9Vxx5Pq5Z

https://twitter.com/cbs_spacenews/status/868872933699182594

Based on this photo that fire looks to be more than a half mile away if not farther. Seems incredibly unlikely is was hot exhaust itself that started it. Hot debris maybe. Even that seems unlikely. Seems like pure coincidence that it started after hot fire but perhaps we'll get confirmation either way at some point.

Half a mile? Nah, try something like a quarter of a mile. The smoke seems to come from just behind the LOX storage sphere (you can see the very top of it in the photo) which is located some 417 m (1559 ft) northwest of the center of the hardstand. From fence to fence, the octagonal pad area of 39A measures 829 m (2719.81 ft).

[Barrie]

Would expect new procedure (at least for summer) will be a full clean out prior to launch/static fire.

Maybe damping down of vulnerable areas in dry weather would work out cheaper.

[cppetrie]

This picture puts the grass fire in perspective:

F9/CRS11: Fire crew sent to apparent grass fire in/near pad 39A in wake of hot-fire test; SpaceX reports good test, targeting 6/1 launch pic.twitter.com/v9Vxx5Pq5Z

https://twitter.com/cbs_spacenews/status/868872933699182594

Based on this photo that fire looks to be more than a half mile away if not farther. Seems incredibly unlikely is was hot exhaust itself that started it. Hot debris maybe. Even that seems unlikely. Seems like pure coincidence that it started after hot fire but perhaps we'll get confirmation either way at some point.

Half a mile? Nah, try something like a quarter of a mile. The smoke seems to come from just behind the LOX storage sphere (you can see the very top of it in the photo) which is located some 417 m (1559 ft) northwest of the center of the hardstand. From fence to fence, the octagonal pad area of 39A measures 829 m (2719.81 ft).

After studying the satellite views some more the photo seems likely to have been taken from the approximate location of the VAB. A line drawn from there to the LOX tank crosses the dispersion area from the flame trench primarily in the region just beyond the pad perimeter, which is about .25 miles from the mouth of the flame trench. The area directly behind the mouth is a small lake flanked on each side by grass/brush/woods. Depending on how far behind the LOX tank the fire is it could be anywhere from just beyond the pad perimeter (.25 miles) to near the beach, which is about .5 miles from the flame trench. The location of the fire certainly puts it within the dispersion field of the flame trench. I guess rocket exhaust can throw trench debris quite aways. Again, fortunately the fire was quickly contained, and future precautionary steps will likely be taken to reduce the risk of a fire going forward. I guess I would have expected the pad perimeter to have been outside whatever distance debris could reasonably be expected to go in order to prevent this sort of thing.

[macpacheco]

So is the static fire 1 day effective delay enough to delay the launch ? 3 days in between should be more than enough to load/mate dragon and conduct LRR ?

[darkenfast]

Wallops had a good blaze from the first or second Antares launch.  By the time the fire engines got back on the island, it had gotten pretty high.

[ZachS09]

So is the static fire 1 day effective delay enough to delay the launch ? 3 days in between should be more than enough to load/mate dragon and conduct LRR ?

They said they were still proceeding with the June 1st target after the static fire, so probably no delay.

[Brovane]

So is the static fire 1 day effective delay enough to delay the launch ? 3 days in between should be more than enough to load/mate dragon and conduct LRR ?

I suspect some SpaceX people are going to be working Memorial Day now to keep the June 1st launch date. 

[Wolfram66]

Are they able to load a new multiplexer-deMultiplexer unit for the late load manifest?

[sdsds]

Would the MDM be external cargo? I'm curious if the late-load process includes that.

I'm also curious whether Dragon mate to the LV takes place concurrently with the LRR. Or can it only start after a LRR "go?"

[woods170]

Would the MDM be external cargo? I'm curious if the late-load process includes that.

I'm also curious whether Dragon mate to the LV takes place concurrently with the LRR. Or can it only start after a LRR "go?"

The EXT MDM spares are stored inside the ISS and are small enough to fit thru the EVA hatch of the Quest airlock. Spare EXT MDM's go up as pressurized cargo and could potentially be added to Dragon as late load cargo.

[jpo234]

Some interesting facts about CRS-11 and upcoming missions:
http://spaceflight101.com/falcon-9-completes-static-fire-ahead-of-dragon-spx11/

[ChrisGebhardt]

Would expect new procedure (at least for summer) will be a full clean out prior to launch/static fire.

Maybe damping down of vulnerable areas in dry weather would work out cheaper.

Right now, that would literally be everywhere.  Florida is experiencing a rather significant drought.  Watering everything around a 1/2 or mile radius the pad would not only be impractical, but also wouldn't make a difference.  Shuttle launches sometimes resulted in fires around the pad in times where the area was well above average for annual rainfall.  And just because there was a fire started this time, doesn't mean there will be one during launch.  This is why KSC EOC (and the KSC and Cape Fire Fighters) are on call for static fires and launches... to quickly address this type of situation.  It's a known risk, and it's prepared for.

[ChrisGebhardt]

 I guess I would have expected the pad perimeter to have been outside whatever distance debris could reasonably be expected to go in order to prevent this sort of thing.

Not really.  The pad perimeter fencing is added security and protection for critical pad systems, not for how far the rocket can throw debris.

[Lars-J]

From the update thread:

Worth mentioning that this will be a noteworthy launch not just for the first reuse of a Dragon, but this will also be the 100th launch off LC-39A (12 Saturn Vs, 82 Shuttles, 5 [soon to be 6] Falcons).

The Wikipedia has only 80 STS launches from pad A. I assume you have a more accurate number?