SpaceX Falcon 9 : GPS III SV04 : SLC-40 : November 5, 2020

[cppetrie]

Is there any solid information about what needs to be done to this launcher and the likely time-line until it is ready to launch again?

L2 has info

[klod]

Any tips when we can expect this or nearest launch from SLC-40?

[Steven Pietrobon]

I don't know what is in L2 (I have access, but haven't looked) but my guess is that it is an engine change. That is what SpaceX should have done for Starlink L5 when it detected a problem during ignition in a previous launch attempt, chose to ignore the problem, with the engine failing near the end of the burn and causing the loss of the booster during landing.

https://spaceflightnow.com/2020/03/18/falcon-9-rocket-overcomes-engine-failure-to-deploy-starlink-satellites/

[scr00chy]

That is what SpaceX should have done for Starlink L5 when it detected a problem during ignition in a previous launch attempt, chose to ignore the problem, with the engine failing near the end of the burn and causing the loss of the booster during landing.

Are you assuming those two things were related or has it been confirmed somewhere?

[Steven Pietrobon]

Are you assuming those two things were related or has it been confirmed somewhere?

Assumption that the two events were related.

[soltasto]

Are you assuming those two things were related or has it been confirmed somewhere?

Assumption that the two events were related.

My understanding was that they saw the problem, tried to fix it by cleaning the engines, but the procedure wasn't perfect and the cleaning process actually made the engine fail. They didn't ignore the problem as that alcool that ignited and caused the engine shutdown wouldn't have been there had they ignored the problem. It probably wasn't an issue in prior missions as that alcool just evaporated away as that cleaning was done more in advance.

[Nomadd]

That is what SpaceX should have done for Starlink L5 when it detected a problem during ignition in a previous launch attempt, chose to ignore the problem, with the engine failing near the end of the burn and causing the loss of the booster during landing.

Are you assuming those two things were related or has it been confirmed somewhere?

I thought the issues were with two different engines.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

The engines for 1062 are new. They have not seen flight but they have been fired.

Engine acceptance tests MacGregor - include full duration burn

Booster stage acceptance test MacGregor - include full duration burn

Hot fire test before launch Cape - only a hot fire no problems noted no payload, was taken back to HIF to add payload

Attempted Launch - engine fail on ignition

What happened between its hotfire and launch attempt? Plus it sat on the pad a long time vertical.

SpaceX has yet to part with the details of just what exactly failed and why.

[orbitalemgun]

The engines for 1062 are new. They have not seen flight but they have been fired.

Engine acceptance tests MacGregor - include full duration burn

Booster stage acceptance test MacGregor - include full duration burn

Hot fire test before launch Cape - only a hot fire no problems noted no payload, was taken back to HIF to add payload

Attempted Launch - engine fail on ignition

What happened between its hotfire and launch attempt? Plus it sat on the pad a long time vertical.

SpaceX has yet to part with the details of just what exactly failed and why.

I'm sure the SpaceX engineers are as puzzled as we are.

[theinternetftw]

x-post due to relevance:

https://twitter.com/kathylueders/status/1315005030672424960

[snip]

Launch of NASA’s SpaceX Crew-1 mission to the International Space Station is now targeted for no sooner than early-to-mid November, providing additional time for SpaceX to complete hardware testing and data reviews as the company evaluates off-nominal behavior of Falcon 9 first stage engine gas generators observed during a recent non-NASA mission launch attempt. Through the agency’s Commercial Crew and Launch Services Programs partnership with SpaceX, NASA has full insight into the company’s launch and testing data.

[Lars-J]

I'm sure the SpaceX engineers are as puzzled as we are.

I'm quite sure that they are NOT as puzzled as we are. They know a LOT more than we do.

[su27k]

I would assume they already have some idea of why it failed, otherwise they wouldn't greenlight the Starlink v1.0 Flight 12 launch.

[zubenelgenubi: slight edit for clarity]

[russianhalo117]

I would assume they already have some idea of why it failed, otherwise they wouldn't greenlight the Starlink launch.

The Starlink flight use previous boosters. The boosters presently grounded seem to be only first time fliers which speculatively indicates the GG issue(s) might involve a lot/batch which is why they are inspecting all of the other first time boosters at their launch sites. The November flights are unaffected as they are far enough out to not yet disrupt those campaigns but still allow the additional inspections.

[Joffan]

I'm sure the SpaceX engineers are as puzzled as we are.

I'm quite sure that they are NOT as puzzled as we are. They know a LOT more than we do.

While essentially agreeing, it is possible that they both know more and are more puzzled than us.

[sferrin]

I would assume they already have some idea of why it failed, otherwise they wouldn't greenlight the Starlink launch.

What date has L13 been green-lit for?

[Alexphysics]

I would assume they already have some idea of why it failed, otherwise they wouldn't greenlight the Starlink launch.

What date has L13 been green-lit for?

They're talking about L12 which was launched a few days after the abort on this mission.

[zubenelgenubi]

Some thoughts re: Space Coast launches into November:

Scheduled:
Date - Satellite(s) - Rocket - Launch Site - Time (UTC)

2020
October 18 - Starlink flight 14 (x60) [v1.0 L13] - Falcon 9-095 (B1051.6 S) - Canaveral SLC-40 Kennedy LC-39A - 12:27
(may require a Static Fire; may slip into November if GPS and NRO launches take priority)
October - GPS III SV04 - Falcon 9-096 (B1062.1 S) - Canaveral SLC-40 ~01:00
(15 minute launch window; launch about 4 minutes earlier/day; likely (re-)Static Fire before launch)
October 16 24 - NROL-44: Orion 10 (RIO 10, Mission 8306, Mentor 8 ) (TBD) - Delta IV-H [D-385] - Canaveral SLC-37B - 02:00-06:00 42
(launch about 4 minutes earlier/day)
NET October 25 - NROL-108 - Falcon 9-097 (L) - Canaveral SLC-40
October - NROL-101 - Atlas V 531 (AV-090) - Canaveral SLC-41
(may require a Static Fire before launch)
November 6 - SiriusXM SXM-7 - Falcon 9 - Canaveral SLC-40
(launch about 4 minutes earlier/day)
October 31 Early to Mid-November - USCV-1: Dragon v2 "Resilience" Crew-1 - Falcon 9 (B1061.1 S) - Kennedy LC-39A - 06:40
(will require a Static Fire before launch; launch 22-26 minutes earlier/day)
NET November 22 - Dragon v2 SpX-21 (CRS-21), Bishop (NanoRacks Airlock Module) - Falcon 9 - Kennedy LC-39A - ~21:30 (or Early December)
(launch 22-26 minutes earlier/day)

Changes on October 10th
Changes on October 11th
Changes on October 13th
zubenelgenubi

Cross-post; no new news yet about this launch:

October • Falcon 9 • GPS 3 SV04
Launch time: TBD
Launch site: SLC-40, Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida

EDITed October 13

[Lee Jay]

Or more extremely, you could launch them closer together and have one fly in the other's wake, reducing drag losses.

I don't think that works on a rocket.

Why not?   Drag reduction by formation flying offers two ways to reduce drag.  One is reduced frontal area, like drafting in bicycles or cars, the other is by using the wing vortex to provide lift and hence reduce induced drag.  The second won't work for rockets, but the first should still be available.

Oh boy, I thought you were kidding.  You seriously want to be in the wake of a rocket with thousand degree Mach 5 gas coming at you?

Drafting doesn't work on rockets or planes because in both cases you're expelling mass out the back at high speed to propel the vehicle.  It works on cars and bikes because you're pushing off the road not off the air.

[JoerTex]

This discussion belongs in another thread.

[RocketLover0119]

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1317118188044300288

Putting this here as this pertains to this mission. Engines were taken off and sent to mcgregor, most likely means a lengthy stand down.