Author Topic: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION  (Read 557920 times)

Offline king1999

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 264
  • F-Niner Fan
  • Atlanta, GA
  • Liked: 154
  • Likes Given: 570
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #480 on: 01/02/2018 02:23 AM »
No more static fire needed for moving to another pad?

Online Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10655
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 7518
  • Likes Given: 5301
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #481 on: 01/02/2018 02:27 AM »
No more static fire needed for moving to another pad?
I am surprised by that... seems like it would be a good idea.
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline ZachS09

Maybe the static fire happened in secrecy and no press was available at Canaveral at that time.
Because the Falcon Heavy Test Flight was successful, it has inspired thousands of people to consider changing the future of space travel.

Offline old_sellsword

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 632
  • Liked: 531
  • Likes Given: 463
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #483 on: 01/02/2018 02:41 AM »
Maybe the static fire happened in secrecy and no press was available at Canaveral at that time.

No, we would’ve seen it on the Eastern Range’s schedule.

Online zubenelgenubi

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1731
  • Arc to Arcturus, then Spike to Spica
  • Commonwealth of Virginia
  • Liked: 445
  • Likes Given: 1370
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #484 on: 01/02/2018 02:44 AM »
No more static fire needed for moving to another pad?
I am surprised by that... seems like it would be a good idea.
I am too.

I assume that a 2nd static fire would have occurred by today? to allow a the LRR that would follow to occur with sufficient time before a launch on the evening of January 4, EST.

And you can't have a static fire without a base safety notice or a notice of the use of the range.  And that content is apparently, not secret.

So, I don't think one can have a "secret" static fire, at least not at CCAFS (or KSC, for that matter).

I deduce that SpaceX and NG (and NG's client) are sufficiently confident in the LV to forego a static fire and proceed directly to the launch.

(I'm not an expert, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express!)

EDIT 1/2 re possible 2nd "something" for ZUMA, after all: Well, I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express!
« Last Edit: 01/02/2018 08:22 PM by zubenelgenubi »
Support your local planetarium!

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8516
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 5027
  • Likes Given: 1603
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #485 on: 01/02/2018 11:16 AM »
No more static fire needed for moving to another pad?
I am surprised by that... seems like it would be a good idea.

And that would be why exactly?

Static fire is about testing the vehicle. It is not about testing the pad. Falcon 9 rockets are not custom-built for a specific launchpad.

And LC-40 had its testing done prior to and during the static fire of CRS-13 and its subsequent launch.

Offline StuffOfInterest

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 415
  • Just interested in space
  • McLean, Virginia, USA
  • Liked: 134
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #486 on: 01/02/2018 11:31 AM »
No more static fire needed for moving to another pad?
I am surprised by that... seems like it would be a good idea.

And that would be why exactly?

Static fire is about testing the vehicle. It is not about testing the pad. Falcon 9 rockets are not custom-built for a specific launchpad.

And LC-40 had its testing done prior to and during the static fire of CRS-13 and its subsequent launch.

Although the static fire itself may test the vehicle, the WDR that is part of the static fire tests the pad facilities and the vehicle to pad interfaces.  SpaceX must be pretty confident of their ground processes at this point if they don't see a need to do a test after moving the vehicle between pads and a different TE.

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8516
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 5027
  • Likes Given: 1603
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #487 on: 01/02/2018 11:50 AM »
No more static fire needed for moving to another pad?
I am surprised by that... seems like it would be a good idea.

And that would be why exactly?

Static fire is about testing the vehicle. It is not about testing the pad. Falcon 9 rockets are not custom-built for a specific launchpad.

And LC-40 had its testing done prior to and during the static fire of CRS-13 and its subsequent launch.

Although the static fire itself may test the vehicle, the WDR that is part of the static fire tests the pad facilities and the vehicle to pad interfaces.  SpaceX must be pretty confident of their ground processes at this point if they don't see a need to do a test after moving the vehicle between pads and a different TE.

Please read what I posted earlier: Falcon 9 vehicles are not custom-built for a specific launchpad.
Although the TEL from LC-39A is outwardly dissimilar to the one on LC-40, they are functionally the same: both support the vehicle in an identical manner. Both TEL's provide identical pad-to-vehicle interfaces.
And although launchpad LC-39A as-a-whole looks outwardly very different from LC-40 as-a-whole they are functionally identical: both can launch the same Falcon 9 vehicle.

So, again: no need for a second static fire unless there was an issue with the Falcon 9 vehicle itself.
« Last Edit: 01/02/2018 11:50 AM by woods170 »

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2783
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2905
  • Likes Given: 2249
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #488 on: 01/02/2018 03:31 PM »
The point of "fit checks" is to fit all vehicles to all launchers, not a vehicle to a launcher.

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8516
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 5027
  • Likes Given: 1603
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #489 on: 01/02/2018 05:14 PM »
The point of "fit checks" is to fit all vehicles to all launchers, not a vehicle to a launcher.
Correct. And LC-40 already has had its "fit checks".

Online Herb Schaltegger

The point of "fit checks" is to fit all vehicles to all launchers, not a vehicle to a launcher.
Correct. And LC-40 already has had its "fit checks".
Sorry but your statement that the static fire is to test the complex not the booster, and that since LC-40 has had a successful operational launch since reactivation there is no need to do a static fire for Zuma doesn’t follow axiomatically. Otherwise SpaceX would not still routinely do static fires at each complex before each mission. After all, how many launches came off each pad this past year and for how many of those was the static fire skipped, regardless of how recent the prior launch occurred?
Ad astra per aspirin ...

Offline RocketLover0119

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 307
  • Space Geek
  • Tampa, Florida
  • Liked: 209
  • Likes Given: 253
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #491 on: 01/02/2018 06:21 PM »
Chris B states on the update thread that a 2nd SF is coming up potentially.....
"The Falcon has landed"

Online ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7532
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 1749
  • Likes Given: 386
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #492 on: 01/02/2018 06:34 PM »
Static fire is about testing the vehicle. It is not about testing the pad.

Maybe not once they have a well-oiled pad running. However, their history shows them hitting various snags with new/upgraded pads due to their idiosyncrasies, with the GSE (pad or test site) in some severe cases causing hardware damage.

I'm not the least bit surprised they opted for another full dress rehearsal for such an important mission.
« Last Edit: 01/02/2018 06:41 PM by ugordan »

Offline ChrisGebhardt

  • Assistant Managing Editor
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6933
  • ad astra scientia
  • ~1 AU
  • Liked: 5578
  • Likes Given: 715
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #493 on: 01/02/2018 06:40 PM »
Chris B states on the update thread that a 2nd SF is coming up potentially.....

"Potential second static fire" is the post in the update thread.

With no payload, all signs point toward that.  But this could be a WDR with no engine firing.  Or it could be fit checks for SLC-40 -- as it's only hosted one launch since being rebuilt and they could want to do part of a normal static fire flow with this booster to test connections and everything without actually static firing it again.  Or it could be a static fire.  We don't know yet.

We've never had a booster static fire on one pad and then move to another pad.  This all a new part of the puzzle that is launching a Falcon 9.

EDIT: Remember, the entire static fire process of getting the vehicle connected to the pad, fueling it, and lighting the engines DOESN'T JUST TEST the rocket but all the pad systems, too.  So while the booster might not NEED another static fire, they might still need to do some of these routine static fire elements to satisfy pre-mission pad readiness.
« Last Edit: 01/02/2018 06:50 PM by ChrisGebhardt »

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8516
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 5027
  • Likes Given: 1603
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #494 on: 01/03/2018 06:45 AM »
Chris B states on the update thread that a 2nd SF is coming up potentially.....

"Potential second static fire" is the post in the update thread.

With no payload, all signs point toward that.  But this could be a WDR with no engine firing.  Or it could be fit checks for SLC-40 -- as it's only hosted one launch since being rebuilt and they could want to do part of a normal static fire flow with this booster to test connections and everything without actually static firing it again.  Or it could be a static fire.  We don't know yet.

We've never had a booster static fire on one pad and then move to another pad.  This all a new part of the puzzle that is launching a Falcon 9.

EDIT: Remember, the entire static fire process of getting the vehicle connected to the pad, fueling it, and lighting the engines DOESN'T JUST TEST the rocket but all the pad systems, too.  So while the booster might not NEED another static fire, they might still need to do some of these routine static fire elements to satisfy pre-mission pad readiness.

Let me put it this way: If SpaceX were actually planning to perform a second static fire for Zuma, it would be on the range schedule.

Have you checked the range schedule?

strong jet stream over florida, basically is the condition that is bringing exceptionally cold weather in some parts of the United States. I think this is what made the launch slip by 24 hours


Offline RocketLover0119

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 307
  • Space Geek
  • Tampa, Florida
  • Liked: 209
  • Likes Given: 253
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #496 on: 01/03/2018 12:43 PM »
The fact that the supposed second SF has not occurred yet would mean this was simply a fit check, and a SF requires range booking, and SpaceX had not yet done that.
« Last Edit: 01/03/2018 12:44 PM by RocketLover0119 »
"The Falcon has landed"

Online kdhilliard

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 257
  • Kirk
  • Tanstaa, FL
  • Liked: 273
  • Likes Given: 744
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #497 on: 01/03/2018 01:25 PM »
Does a full Wet Dress Rehearsal not require the same level of roadblocks needed for a Static Fire?

Online abaddon

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1720
  • Liked: 1197
  • Likes Given: 1023
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #498 on: 01/03/2018 01:43 PM »
Does a full Wet Dress Rehearsal not require the same level of roadblocks needed for a Static Fire?
A good question, since the AMOS conflagration could easily have happened during a WDR...

Offline RocketLover0119

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 307
  • Space Geek
  • Tampa, Florida
  • Liked: 209
  • Likes Given: 253
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #499 on: 01/03/2018 01:57 PM »
Per twitter, spacex confirms a WDR was complete and that all is on track for launch friday-

https://mobile.twitter.com/SpaceX/status/948554978163007488
"The Falcon has landed"

Tags: