-
#1000
by
Mau
on 11 Jan, 2018 17:11
-
There are reports that static fire test has been scrubbed for the day after the propelling loading testing (info from Stephen Clark)
-
#1001
by
Jim
on 11 Jan, 2018 17:14
-
It was scrubbed
-
#1002
by
abaddon
on 11 Jan, 2018 17:17
-
Any indication how far the WDR got?
(E.g. we have "WDR where a static fire could have taken place" versus "WDR where only a partial prop load occurred", an example of the latter being the partial WDR before Zuma launch).
-
#1003
by
dnavas
on 11 Jan, 2018 17:40
-
Any indication how far the WDR got?
The video feed didn't show venting for very long, for whatever that's worth.
-
#1004
by
Space Ghost 1962
on 11 Jan, 2018 18:05
-
Is there important test data to be captured from the firing of densified propellant vs. less densified propellant.
it's also not just a test of the firing. There might be different issues that arise when loading and unloading subcooled props that don't cause any problem at 'normal' temps.
One of the downsides of densified props is the increased fragility in the vehicle/GSE handling. This is in trade for increased vehicle performance. And that fragility goes up
combitorially with the number of vehicles (2 for F9, 4 for FH, thus 2! verses 4!).
The benefits of this extreme trade is that you have an economically dirt cheap vehicle with maximal performance for that vehicle. It'll never be a methalox BFR, but as an expression of "older rocket" technology expressed by american/russian/european/chinese vehicles, its $/kg/flight far exceeds all of the priors.
(Ironically, the kerolox vehicle expertise of the russian's is being eclipsed, even though they have owned the "high ground" with ORSC kerolox engines, and are being pwned by a rival using gas generators - they could have fielded a Zenit cluster vehicle that would have rivaled FH performance (triple RD-171 - Energia proved you could do 4x RD-171's). But the distraction of Angara and others in the avoidance of dealing with Zenit cost them this.)
The next generation of methalox vehicles, starting with Vulcan, will overlap with this, but eventually far exceed.
No surprise that WDR has a few stalls.
-
#1005
by
shuttlefan
on 11 Jan, 2018 19:45
-
Can someone clarify exactly how much propellants were loaded into all three stages today? Thanks!
-
#1006
by
Jim
on 11 Jan, 2018 20:11
-
Can someone clarify exactly how much propellants were loaded into all three stages today? Thanks!
all the propellants were loaded
-
#1007
by
Lar
on 11 Jan, 2018 20:26
-
Can someone clarify exactly how much propellants were loaded into all three stages today? Thanks!
You mean all 4 stages, I think
-
#1008
by
Lars-J
on 11 Jan, 2018 20:31
-
Can someone clarify exactly how much propellants were loaded into all three stages today? Thanks!
You mean all 4 stages, I think
No, this is not a 4 stage rocket by any definition.
3 cores and an upper stage, but not 4 stages.
In US terms, it is a 2 stage vehicle with boosters.
In Russian terms, it is a 3 stage vehicle as the boosters count as their own stage.
-
#1009
by
vanoord
on 11 Jan, 2018 20:39
-
SpaceX #FalconHeavy status update No. 2: Friday test fire pushed back a few hours to 1000 to 1600 ET (1500 to 2100 UTC).
https://twitter.com/emrekelly/status/951546771011985414
Same point as has been made on Twitter - for clarification, that's earlier in the day compared to today.
-
#1010
by
allio
on 11 Jan, 2018 21:31
-
I'm looking at this image from telarati.
Does it look like the front end of the side boosters has been substantially rebuilt? The core booster has the grid fins where you'd expect them, 4-5m shy of the seperation system. If the side boosters and core are supposed to be standard F9 boosters, surely the side boosters would be the same up to the seperation height with a nose cone strapped on after for good measure, unless the booster common sections are only common up to the last row of rivets below the grid fins, with a different nose section depending on it's purpose......
Actually. just looked at a few videos. never realised before that the second stage engine was housed in the front end of the booster. always thought for some reason that there was an interstage expendable skirt involved....
and now that i think about it farther. having the gridfins built into the section forward of that line of rivets makes sense as it allows you to have different interstages/nose cones depending on whether a landing is intended or the booster is expendable....
Which means the true front end of the falcon 9 booster is that line of rivets.... must be where booster tanking ends... never realised that before....
I hope i'm right in my assumptions by the way....
amazing what you can figure out from a photo....
Here's hoping for a good static fire tomorrow....
-
#1011
by
Jim
on 11 Jan, 2018 21:35
-
...
Actually. just looked at a few videos. never realised before that the second stage engine was housed in the front end of the booster.
..
No, it is in the interstage. The interstage is from the rivet line to the upper horizontal line. Nose cones replace the interstage on the side boosters. The booster ends at the rivet line.
-
#1012
by
allio
on 11 Jan, 2018 21:58
-
...
Actually. just looked at a few videos. never realised before that the second stage engine was housed in the front end of the booster.
..
No, it is in the interstage. The interstage is from the rivet line to the upper horizontal line. Nose cones replace the interstage on the side boosters. The booster ends at the rivet line.
yeah i kind of got there in the end....
-
#1013
by
wannamoonbase
on 11 Jan, 2018 22:08
-
What a huge day for SpaceX and the FH.
After almost 7 years they have it vertical on the pad, alive and fueled. I'm sure there are some engineers looking at data right now and all night.
It makes sense to try again tomorrow, it's already out of the barn and vertical.
If everything goes well, it may only roll back in and back out, 1 more time.
After all the talk, speculation and waiting we are right on the cusp of seeing this thing go....and then a short time later come back.
-
#1014
by
OneSpeed
on 11 Jan, 2018 22:15
-
When was the last time this much energy has been (deliberately) unleashed at the Cape?
I have tremendous new respect for the reaction frame, and its attachment points to terra firma, for holding onto this beast, even for a small collection of seconds. How much weight is shed during a 12 second burn, with a best guess at staggered engine start?
A Merlin1D at 92% thrust is burning about 280kg of propellant per second.
Assuming the average burn time is 12 seconds, that's 27 * 280 * 12 = 90,720kg or about 90mT of propellant.
-
#1015
by
georgegassaway
on 11 Jan, 2018 23:24
-
I'm pretty sure a Saturn V was never static fired at the Cape. I know the shuttle did, along with the post-ignition aborts
But the shuttle only did FRF Static Firings with the three SSME's, not the SRB's. Total a bit over 1.5 million pounds of thrust.
So, the "last time" there was as much thrust as FH has, at the Cape for a static firing was never.
F9 set that record (over 1.8 million), nudging the shuttle.
[correction - Jim noted below that Delta-IV also did a Static Firing]
And frankly on-the-pad static firings have been pretty rare (Before F9), so I do not know what vehicles at the Cape did so before the shuttle (I mean intentional static firing tests, not attempted launches that became shutdown aborts).
BTW - the Saturn-V never was static fired at the Cape. The early S-IC stages were tested fired at Huntsville, then later the testing was moved to Stennis, before being barged to the Cape. N-1 never was static fired, anywhere, which is a big reason it failed (and one of the reasons why attempts to link N-1's problems, to worries about FH have been so silly. As though 30 engined N-1 vs 27 engined FH had any true relevance whatsoever on comparing reliability of the two vehicles. H***, they didn't even static test fire more than about 25% of the engines in each N-1 booster, more like a random QC check).
-
#1016
by
Jim
on 11 Jan, 2018 23:31
-
Atlas, Thor and Titan reguarly did static fires in the 50’s. Delta IV did one too.
-
#1017
by
Kenp51d
on 11 Jan, 2018 23:39
-
Will it be possible to watch live the static fire? Where if so? I hunted for about an hour this morning before giving up to do other task.
Ken
Sent from my V10 using Tapatalk
-
#1018
by
lrk
on 11 Jan, 2018 23:43
-
Spaceflightnow.com usually live-streams static fires on 39A.
-
#1019
by
dnavas
on 11 Jan, 2018 23:50
-
Will it be possible to watch live the static fire? Where if so? I hunted for about an hour this morning before giving up to do other task.
I direct your attention to the Update thread and a post at 12:19PM EST
I assume Chris will be there tomorrow.
