SpaceX Falcon 9 : AMOS-17 : August 6, 2019 : DISCUSSION

[codav]

https://nextspaceflight.com/launches/details/85
has it as 1047.3 since at least 22 July.

It was the most obvious choice, as no new booster has been sighted leaving Hawthorne (just the one spotted yesterday on I-10 in Arizona, heading to McGregor), they don't have any new or once-flown boosters in stock (not even the FH side boosters which flew twice) and this one was the only twice-flown booster on the east coast.

[Bananas_on_Mars]

Since launch is NET August 3rd and no signal for a static fire yet, could it be they do a static fire with the payload attached?
Might send a strong signal...

[mn]

Since launch is NET August 3rd and no signal for a static fire yet, could it be they do a static fire with the payload attached?
Might send a strong signal...

Definitely would be a strong signal, but not the kind of signal you want to be sending.

[scr00chy]

Since launch is NET August 3rd and no signal for a static fire yet, could it be they do a static fire with the payload attached?
Might send a strong signal...

I'd say 0% chance of that happening, considering what happened with the last Amos payload that was attached to the rocket during a static fire...

[Bananas_on_Mars]

Well, i‘ve said it here before, static fire with a payload attached became safer because of what happened with Amos-6. Perception might be different. We‘ll see.

[lonestriker]

Well, i‘ve said it here before, static fire with a payload attached became safer because of what happened with Amos-6. Perception might be different. We‘ll see.

The only F9 payloads that will be attached for static fires will be Crew Dragon and SpaceX's own payloads like Starlink.  Other than that, I would bet good money against any other payloads being attached.  If nothing else, the insurance companies would probably not cover loss of your payload to an AMOS-6 type mishap again on F9.

[jjyach]

Just to make it official to you guys, there is no payload attached to the booster.

[basedoesgames]

Is there any idea of a time frame for the static fire? I want to go out there to try and catch it but I don't need to be sitting out there for 6 hours if the window doesn't open until 5-6 PM local.

[SpaceOffshore]

Sometimes my tracking can be the first sign of a delay  . Thanks for the info Chris - I do lurk on here by the way!

[intelati]

We understand SpaceX's Falcon 9/AMOS-17 launch will slip a few days (the weather was going to be poor anyway!) due to an apparent requirement to conduct a second Static Fire test on Friday (NET).

Is this the first time a full Static Fire has been completed, and then repeated for a Falcon 9 Rocket?

Can't remember anything of the sort. I might remember an aborted static fire, but can't think of a situation like this.

[amarkit]

We understand SpaceX's Falcon 9/AMOS-17 launch will slip a few days (the weather was going to be poor anyway!) due to an apparent requirement to conduct a second Static Fire test on Friday (NET).

Is this the first time a full Static Fire has been completed, and then repeated for a Falcon 9 Rocket?

Can't remember anything of the sort. I might remember an aborted static fire, but can't think of a situation like this.

CASSIOPE had two static fires.

[whitelancer64]

We understand SpaceX's Falcon 9/AMOS-17 launch will slip a few days (the weather was going to be poor anyway!) due to an apparent requirement to conduct a second Static Fire test on Friday (NET).

Is this the first time a full Static Fire has been completed, and then repeated for a Falcon 9 Rocket?

Can't remember anything of the sort. I might remember an aborted static fire, but can't think of a situation like this.

OG2 Mission 2, the 10th Falcon 9 flight (back in 2014) had two successful static fires.

The second was due to having three scrubbed launch attempts, and after the 3rd scrub they had to replace the TVC actuator in the 1st stage. That launch campaign was over 2 months long.

[ulm_atms]

We understand SpaceX's Falcon 9/AMOS-17 launch will slip a few days (the weather was going to be poor anyway!) due to an apparent requirement to conduct a second Static Fire test on Friday (NET).

My guess is an engine data review showed something wrong with an engine and it needs work/replacement and then re-validation.  This is a used booster after all....and shows why the static fires are so important. 

Scratch that.....valve.

SpaceX:

https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1157049942113865728

[IntoTheVoid]

This was telegraphed somewhat, this is not the standard phrasing after a good static fire.

SpaceX tweet confirming launch attempt for the 3rd, tweet phrases "Team is assessing data".

https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1156741958229905409

[SpaceOffshore]

GO Navigator is underway downrange. At full speed, it's a 58 hour trip to the location where the fairing will land. This does seem to put Monday out of the question but makes Tuesday a good target. Wait to see what SpaceX say after tonight's static fire! The Air Force seemed to indicate a large delay in a weird tweet earlier.

[FlattestEarth]

Targeting Aug 6, but that would be less than 36h before the Atlas V launch.

[zubenelgenubi]

Seeking confirmation, correction, or clarification:
The range can support a Tuesday evening Falcon 9 launch from SLC-40, followed by a Thursday morning Atlas V/AEHF 5 launch from SLC-41.

IIRC, the Atlas V should roll out Tuesday morning--no longer enclosed.

The Air Force may choose to ask for a delay of the Falcon 9 launch until after their August 8 launch.

Precedence:
Last year, the Falcon 9/Hispasat 30W-6 launch from SLC-40 was delayed until after the GOES-S launch on Atlas V from SLC-41--same general circumstances.

EDIT/ADD self-quote of SFN article:

I just found this on SFN, dated Feb. 27:
Atlas 5 launch on track for Thursday, SpaceX mission expected to slip

The “clean pad” layout at Complex 41 does not offer shelter to the Atlas 5 rocket once its in position on the launch mount, and officials were concerned about exposing the launcher and sensitive optics on its weather satellite payload to exhaust plumes from the Falcon 9 rocket as it blasts off from the nearby Complex 40 launch pad.

Managers also studied whether the Atlas 5 rocket and the GOES-S satellite would be at risk of damage on the pad if the Falcon 9 rocket had a mishap during launch.

[mn]

Seeking confirmation, correction, or clarification:
The range can support a Tuesday evening Falcon 9 launch from SLC-40, followed by a Thursday morning Atlas V/AEHF 5 launch from SLC-41.

IIRC, the Atlas V should roll out Tuesday morning--no longer enclosed.

The Air Force may choose to ask for a delay of the Falcon 9 launch until after their August 8 launch.

Precedence:
Last year, the Falcon 9/Hispasat 30W-6 launch from SLC-40 was delayed until after the GOES-S launch on Atlas V from SLC-41--same general circumstances.

It seems like the AF has already approved the Tuesday launch attempt. At least the weather office which is part of the AF has issued a forecast. And SpaceCom has publicly announced the date, I assume they would know if the date has been range approved.

So the question is what changed since last time?

[Kansan52]

So the question is what changed since last time?

Experience? Paperwork?

[zubenelgenubi]

So the question is what changed since last time?

Experience? Paperwork?

And no sensitive optics, like GOES-S?