SpaceX F9 : Starlink v1.0 L8 Rideshare : June 13, 2020

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/julia_bergeron/status/1270509525460795404

Fair winds and following seas my Sisters. GO Ms Chief glides past in pursuit of GO Ms Tree as they head out to the Starlink landing zone. Launch is scheduled for June 12th.
#SpaceXFleet

[anof]

With the launch this close it seems like the static fire will have the customer satellites attached to the Starlink stack. I don't think there will be enough time to static fire, roll back to the hanger, attach the fairing and then roll out again. I guess we will see soon if the fairing is attached for the static fire.

[capoman]

With the launch this close it seems like the static fire will have the customer satellites attached to the Starlink stack. I don't think there will be enough time to static fire, roll back to the hanger, attach the fairing and then roll out again. I guess we will see soon if the fairing is attached for the static fire.

It might be a required allowance for Starlink rideshares. Since the sats are small and likely not that expensive, they may be willing to take the low risk that it is.

[ZachS09]

http://www.launchphotography.com/Delta_4_Atlas_5_Falcon_9_Launch_Viewing.html

Launch time is 09:42 UTC (5:42 AM EDT).

Since this is about 43 minutes before sunrise, I think I should be able to see it from my home in Sullivan's Island, South Carolina. After all, it's a twilight launch.

[Nomadd]

With the launch this close it seems like the static fire will have the customer satellites attached to the Starlink stack. I don't think there will be enough time to static fire, roll back to the hanger, attach the fairing and then roll out again. I guess we will see soon if the fairing is attached for the static fire.

I'd always wondered why they were still static firing. What do they look at that the computer couldn't decide between ignition and launch? It really doesn't seem to make sense when they static fire with the payload on.

[wannamoonbase]

With the launch this close it seems like the static fire will have the customer satellites attached to the Starlink stack. I don't think there will be enough time to static fire, roll back to the hanger, attach the fairing and then roll out again. I guess we will see soon if the fairing is attached for the static fire.

I'd always wondered why they were still static firing. What do they look at that the computer couldn't decide between ignition and launch? It really doesn't seem to make sense when they static fire with the payload on.

Exactly, I've been waiting for years for them to stop doing static fires for that reason.  With newer vehicles or a lower flight rate I think they make great sense.  But F9 is established and flying every 10-14 days.

Like the higher flights on boosters, it makes sense for them to push limitations on internal flights like Starlink. 

Dropping the static fires would speed up the launch cadence and could really cut the cycle time for each boosters reflight, which they really need for the next 3 months of Starlink flights.

[meekGee]

With the launch this close it seems like the static fire will have the customer satellites attached to the Starlink stack. I don't think there will be enough time to static fire, roll back to the hanger, attach the fairing and then roll out again. I guess we will see soon if the fairing is attached for the static fire.

I'd always wondered why they were still static firing. What do they look at that the computer couldn't decide between ignition and launch? It really doesn't seem to make sense when they static fire with the payload on.

That logic holds for reused boosters.  What I've been waiting for is for the last flight to become the next flight's static fire.

I expect that new boosters may still get a shake-down static fire, because it's not only a test  it's also a measurement - a characterization of that specific vehicle in order to set some of its parameters.

Can they do it at McGregor?  Maybe, partially, but I see no harm in doing it, fully integrated, on the pad.

I can also see a same day static fire happening.  If you want to launch once a week, you can't waste whole days on static fires.

[Mike_1179]

Exactly, I've been waiting for years for them to stop doing static fires for that reason.  With newer vehicles or a lower flight rate I think they make great sense.  But F9 is established and flying every 10-14 days.

Like the higher flights on boosters, it makes sense for them to push limitations on internal flights like Starlink. 

Dropping the static fires would speed up the launch cadence and could really cut the cycle time for each boosters reflight, which they really need for the next 3 months of Starlink flights.

I remember someone much more knowledgeable saying that static fires also check out the GSE. If they were making significant changes to GSE, timing, automation of activities, etc, then static fires work through those as well. Maybe they're still making changes to the countdown sequence or GSE, even if the vehicle itself isn't changing between flights

[abaddon]

Can they do it at McGregor?  Maybe, partially, but I see no harm in doing it, fully integrated, on the pad.

Not sure the pads are built for a full-duration static fire.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

L-2 launch weather forecast still 80% GO

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/nasaspaceflight/status/1270723730407215104

KSC/Cape usually gains notice of testing, but not for this one, so perhaps SpaceX won't conduct a Static Fire test for this mission.

We'll keep an eye on it, but supporting that potential scenario: This is SpaceX's own Starlink launch. It is a flight proven booster (B1059.3).

[anof]

Can they do it at McGregor?  Maybe, partially, but I see no harm in doing it, fully integrated, on the pad.

Not sure the pads are built for a full-duration static fire.

New Falcon 9 stages perform a full duration acceptance test at McGregor.

[abaddon]

Can they do it at McGregor?  Maybe, partially, but I see no harm in doing it, fully integrated, on the pad.

Not sure the pads are built for a full-duration static fire.

New Falcon 9 stages perform a full duration acceptance test at McGregor.

I'm well aware.  @meekGee was talking about doing it at the pad instead.  (Or perhaps getting rid of the full-duration version, and doing just the short static fire for new boosters only, but that was not clear).

[meekGee]

Can they do it at McGregor?  Maybe, partially, but I see no harm in doing it, fully integrated, on the pad.

Not sure the pads are built for a full-duration static fire.

New Falcon 9 stages perform a full duration acceptance test at McGregor.

I'm well aware.  @meekGee was talking about doing it at the pad instead.  (Or perhaps getting rid of the full-duration version, and doing just the short static fire for new boosters only, but that was not clear).

To clarify - I'm not saying do it at the pad instead of McGregor.

I think they might keep static fires for new boosters at the pads, but do away with SFs for reused boosters, using data from the last flight instead.

Why keep the SF for new boosters?  Because somehow the fully integrated stack on the pad is different from the SF at McGregor.

Maybe later on they'll get rid of that too.

[Elthiryel]

Ok, so I'm not 100% sure, because there may be some early flights that I have missed, but I believe it would be the first Falcon 9 flight with no dedicated on-the-pad static fire before the mission. Is that right?

[zubenelgenubi]

Other permutations to consider, and summarizing:

Re-used Falcon 9 boosters for Starlink primary payloads may no longer perform a Static Fire prior to launch, but there may be a Wet Dress Rehearsal.  This could be to confirm Ground Support Equipment is functional BEFORE launch date, and for the Launch Readiness Review.

Or, same Falcon 9 and payload parameters, but performing a dry? dress rehearsal prior to launch.  This has been the default action before ULA Atlas V 401 launches at the Cape.  (The customer can request, and pay for, a WDR.)

Or, it's all-up for the first time on launch date, with no previous test on-pad with the launch vehicle and payload for LRR.

We'll see!

[gongora]

There's no reason to do a WDR, it has all the drawbacks of just doing a static fire.

[capoman]

Yeah, I would think SpaceX would want to get to the point of not having to do static fires. In most cases that they could do a scrub if anything is off nominal. Maybe they'll just do this for Starlink, but you'd think ultimately they'd want to eliminate that step. Falcon 9 has enough flight history that they may be getting to that point, and with ramping up of flight rate, would be that much more desirable.

[CorvusCorax]

Yeah, I would think SpaceX would want to get to the point of not having to do static fires. In most cases that they could do a scrub if anything is off nominal. Maybe they'll just do this for Starlink, but you'd think ultimately they'd want to eliminate that step. Falcon 9 has enough flight history that they may be getting to that point, and with ramping up of flight rate, would be that much more desirable.

I think in the end it's a look at the numbers. A cost/benefit tradeoff.

On average they find x issues with a static fire, improving the chances of hitting the actual launch window by y.

Over time and with more experience this "x" went down. I don't remember when was the last static fire where the review did not result in "go for launch" but actual issues that needed to be solved first. There has been some, in the beginning. Even missions with multiple static fires. But the last 20-30 missions have been quite smooth.

Now there's certainly a ton of tiny things that SpaceX finds and quickly fixes that won't affect the schedule and never make it to the public, but it's obvious that this number would also go down over time. At some point the average cost of a static fire outweighs its benefit. Especially for cheap, low profile missions. For manned, NASA or NSS launches where the customer wants X+k% reliability, it might still be worth it.

But either way, the decision whether to do a static fire or not will be made based on hard numbers. Cost (Reserve range services, propellant, teams, ...) versus gain ( money saved by fixing the found issues - money that would have been lost if they hadn't been fixed ).  Once it's no longer worth it, the static fire goes away, as simple as that.

Knowing this, we can take it backwards. The disappearance of the static fire is in itself a bold statement about Falcon9's overall and schedule reliability - vehicle, GSE, and procedures.

I'd be delighted if that point is reached now :-)

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

A static fire adds 48 hours to the launch processing schedule. 24 hours for the SF and 24 hours for "crew rest". I have been a part of launches where after the 3rd day of launch attempts you can be quite sleep deprived. I was because I was subbing in to watch things while the critical crew got some sleep, plus being awake for the countdown attempts as well. It would be unlikely to have a SF and then the next day have a launch.

If you add the 48 hours to the 9 days between the 3 June and 12 June Starlink launches you get the 11 days of previous minimum launch processing performed previously by SpaceX on a single pad with a SF.