-
#180
by
FutureSpaceTourist
on 11 Jul, 2020 12:59
-
Oh
https://twitter.com/spaceflightnow/status/1281934713704329216Multiple sources say SpaceX has called off today's launch from Florida of a Falcon 9 rocket with the next batch of Starlink broadband satellites and a pair of BlackSky Earth-imaging payloads. spaceflightnow.com/2020/07/08/fal…
Edit to add: the 45th have removed the launch weather forecast from their website too
-
#181
by
Ken the Bin
on 11 Jul, 2020 12:59
-
Based on this NGA NOTMAR, it appears that Friday's launch attempt is canceled and that the next attempt will be Saturday, July 11. (Canceled NOTMAR NAVAREA IV 600/20 had Friday as the primary day and Saturday as the alternate day.)
082108Z JUL 20
NAVAREA IV 602/20(11,26).
WESTERN NORTH ATLANTIC.
FLORIDA.
1. HAZARDOUS OPERATIONS, ROCKET LAUNCHING
111444Z TO 111552Z JUL IN AREAS BOUND BY:
A. 28-39-41N 080-38-10W, 28-48-00N 080-30-00W,
29-20-00N 079-52-00W, 29-17-00N 079-50-00W,
28-37-00N 080-27-00W, 28-34-20N 080-34-15W,
28-38-26N 080-37-17W.
B. 31-39-00N 077-20-00W, 33-15-00N 075-57-00W,
33-40-00N 074-59-00W, 33-21-00N 074-25-00W,
32-45-00N 074-32-00W, 31-25-00N 077-06-00W.
2. CANCEL NAVAREA IV 600/20.
3. CANCEL THIS MSG 111652Z JUL 20.
The NGA has canceled the above NOTMAR and replaced it with this new one, which has the same information for Saturday as the primary day, but adds Monday, July 13, as an alternate day with a launch time around 14:11 UTC.
101904Z JUL 20
NAVAREA IV 608/20(11,26).
WESTERN NORTH ATLANTIC.
FLORIDA.
1. HAZARDOUS OPERATIONS, ROCKET LAUNCHING
111444Z TO 111552Z JUL, ALTERNATE
131401Z TO 131509Z JUL IN AREAS BOUND BY:
A. 28-39-41N 080-38-10W, 28-48-00N 080-30-00W,
29-20-00N 079-52-00W, 29-17-00N 079-50-00W,
28-37-00N 080-27-00W, 28-34-20N 080-34-15W,
28-38-26N 080-37-17W.
B. 31-39-00N 077-20-00W, 33-15-00N 075-57-00W,
33-40-00N 074-59-00W, 33-21-00N 074-25-00W,
32-45-00N 074-32-00W, 31-25-00N 077-06-00W.
2. CANCEL NAVAREA IV 602/20.
3. CANCEL THIS MSG 131609Z JUL 20.
It's looks like today's attempt is canceled. This NOTMAR cancels the one above and lists just Monday, July 13.
111057Z JUL 20
NAVAREA IV 609/20(11,26).
WESTERN NORTH ATLANTIC.
FLORIDA.
1. HAZARDOUS OPERATIONS, ROCKET LAUNCHING
131401Z TO 131509Z JUL IN AREAS BOUND BY:
A. 28-39-41N 080-38-10W, 28-48-00N 080-30-00W,
29-20-00N 079-52-00W, 29-17-00N 079-50-00W,
28-37-00N 080-27-00W, 28-34-20N 080-34-15W,
28-38-26N 080-37-17W.
B. 31-39-00N 077-20-00W, 33-15-00N 075-57-00W,
33-40-00N 074-59-00W, 33-21-00N 074-25-00W,
32-45-00N 074-32-00W, 31-25-00N 077-06-00W.
2. CANCEL NAVAREA IV 608/20.
3. CANCEL THIS MSG 131609Z JUL 20.
-
#182
by
FutureSpaceTourist
on 11 Jul, 2020 13:02
-
-
#183
by
Ken the Bin
on 11 Jul, 2020 13:10
-
It's looks like today's attempt is canceled. This NOTMAR cancels the one above and lists just Monday, July 13.
111057Z JUL 20
NAVAREA IV 609/20(11,26).
WESTERN NORTH ATLANTIC.
FLORIDA.
1. HAZARDOUS OPERATIONS, ROCKET LAUNCHING
131401Z TO 131509Z JUL IN AREAS BOUND BY:
A. 28-39-41N 080-38-10W, 28-48-00N 080-30-00W,
29-20-00N 079-52-00W, 29-17-00N 079-50-00W,
28-37-00N 080-27-00W, 28-34-20N 080-34-15W,
28-38-26N 080-37-17W.
B. 31-39-00N 077-20-00W, 33-15-00N 075-57-00W,
33-40-00N 074-59-00W, 33-21-00N 074-25-00W,
32-45-00N 074-32-00W, 31-25-00N 077-06-00W.
2. CANCEL NAVAREA IV 608/20.
3. CANCEL THIS MSG 131609Z JUL 20.
This additional NGA NOTMAR cancels Monday's attempt.
111133Z JUL 20
NAVAREA IV 610/20(11,26).
WESTERN NORTH ATLANTIC.
FLORIDA.
CANCEL NAVAREA IV 609/20 AND THIS MSG.
-
#184
by
the_other_Doug
on 11 Jul, 2020 13:25
-
Is there any indication as to why the scrub? They've waited until well after prop load to scrub for weather before. This sounds more like a problem with the booster or the payload.
-
#185
by
RocketLover0119
on 11 Jul, 2020 13:33
-
Is there any indication as to why the scrub? They've waited until well after prop load to scrub for weather before. This sounds more like a problem with the booster or the payload.
This is my theory at this point, pretty useless to say “checkouts” is the reason when they’ve had countless days to do any checkout they need to do (not to mention counting to t-1 minute) so definitely something wrong with Rocket I think.
-
#186
by
RocketLover0119
on 11 Jul, 2020 13:34
-
-
#187
by
the_other_Doug
on 11 Jul, 2020 13:43
-
Hmm... this is the first Falcon 9 in a while that didn't pass its static fire with flying colors, had to be brought back into the barn and delayed for what was identified as a leaking valve. And the launch attempt scrubbed for weather was counted down to T-1 minute to get "data collection" on the booster, before being aborted. Now, today they won't even consider moving to prop load. What type of "additional checkout" could be needed? This booster has been static fired since its cleanup/refurb, and has been up and down on the pad several times. Seems, as has been said, that they've had tons of time to run checkouts.
This seems (note, I said "seems") to add up to there being something going in with this booster that is seriously concerning to those responsible for launching it. There seems to be more internal pressure *not* to launch than on any previous Falcon I can recall. Ever since the static fire, it just feels like SpaceX is spring-loaded not to launch position on this one, but to scrub position.
Again, hmm...
-
#188
by
Brovane
on 11 Jul, 2020 14:31
-
Hmm... this is the first Falcon 9 in a while that didn't pass its static fire with flying colors, had to be brought back into the barn and delayed for what was identified as a leaking valve. And the launch attempt scrubbed for weather was counted down to T-1 minute to get "data collection" on the booster, before being aborted. Now, today they won't even consider moving to prop load. What type of "additional checkout" could be needed? This booster has been static fired since its cleanup/refurb, and has been up and down on the pad several times. Seems, as has been said, that they've had tons of time to run checkouts.
This seems (note, I said "seems") to add up to there being something going in with this booster that is seriously concerning to those responsible for launching it. There seems to be more internal pressure *not* to launch than on any previous Falcon I can recall. Ever since the static fire, it just feels like SpaceX is spring-loaded not to launch position on this one, but to scrub position.
Again, hmm...
At least no one can accuse them of having "Go Fever".
-
#189
by
wannamoonbase
on 11 Jul, 2020 14:55
-
Hmm... this is the first Falcon 9 in a while that didn't pass its static fire with flying colors, had to be brought back into the barn and delayed for what was identified as a leaking valve. And the launch attempt scrubbed for weather was counted down to T-1 minute to get "data collection" on the booster, before being aborted. Now, today they won't even consider moving to prop load. What type of "additional checkout" could be needed? This booster has been static fired since its cleanup/refurb, and has been up and down on the pad several times. Seems, as has been said, that they've had tons of time to run checkouts.
This seems (note, I said "seems") to add up to there being something going in with this booster that is seriously concerning to those responsible for launching it. There seems to be more internal pressure *not* to launch than on any previous Falcon I can recall. Ever since the static fire, it just feels like SpaceX is spring-loaded not to launch position on this one, but to scrub position.
Again, hmm...
I've watched too many rocket launches and way more scrubs to be concerned at this point.
This is the 5th flight of the booster, so maybe they are learning the limits of some components. Standing down is great, shows maturity. They'll get this one off soon.
Edit: This was going to be part of my Saturday morning entertainment. Now what am I suppose to do
-
#190
by
quagmire
on 11 Jul, 2020 15:10
-
Hmm... this is the first Falcon 9 in a while that didn't pass its static fire with flying colors, had to be brought back into the barn and delayed for what was identified as a leaking valve. And the launch attempt scrubbed for weather was counted down to T-1 minute to get "data collection" on the booster, before being aborted. Now, today they won't even consider moving to prop load. What type of "additional checkout" could be needed? This booster has been static fired since its cleanup/refurb, and has been up and down on the pad several times. Seems, as has been said, that they've had tons of time to run checkouts.
This seems (note, I said "seems") to add up to there being something going in with this booster that is seriously concerning to those responsible for launching it. There seems to be more internal pressure *not* to launch than on any previous Falcon I can recall. Ever since the static fire, it just feels like SpaceX is spring-loaded not to launch position on this one, but to scrub position.
Again, hmm...
1048.5 also didn’t pass static fire with flying colors, then aborted due an engine issue, and finally lost due to an engine issue.
Clearly 5th flights are posing a challenge right now in the learning curve of the reuse of these boosters.
-
#191
by
FutureSpaceTourist
on 11 Jul, 2020 18:20
-
https://twitter.com/spacexfleet/status/1281992869025386496OCISLY and support ship GO Quest have both departed from the Starlink LZ.
GO Quest has turned in the direction of the ANASIS-II LZ and it looks like OCISLY might be returning to Port Canaveral.
The intentions of Ms. Tree and Ms. Chief are not immediately clear.
-
#192
by
LouScheffer
on 11 Jul, 2020 18:52
-
all providers are equal when it comes to the vagaries of weather. 
This seems off. The Shuttle, for example, could not launch in cold weather, but Russian rockets seem to have little problem with this. And ICBMs are explicitly designed to launch in bad weather, as waiting a few days for the weather to improve is not an option.
-
#193
by
zubenelgenubi
on 11 Jul, 2020 19:58
-
Moderator: Thread trim.
Sferrin, you had a post deleted, but you continued your sub-NSF-standard discussion re: the alleged failure of SpaceX to launch Falcon 9 on-time. And others responded.
Member: I give you a hypothesis to discuss in the following post.
-
#194
by
zubenelgenubi
on 11 Jul, 2020 19:59
-
The #Falcon9 for #ANASIS2 just went vertical on neighbouring SLC-40 for Static Fire later today!
Could the cancellation of the
Starlink launch today (July 11), for an "internal" customer have (partially?) been to allow the Static Fire for the
Anasis-II LV, also today, for an external customer?
-
#195
by
FutureSpaceTourist
on 11 Jul, 2020 20:20
-
-
#196
by
quagmire
on 11 Jul, 2020 20:21
-
The #Falcon9 for #ANASIS2 just went vertical on neighbouring SLC-40 for Static Fire later today!
Could the cancellation of the Starlink launch today (July 11), for an "internal" customer have (partially?) been to allow the Static Fire for the Anasis-II LV, also today, for an external customer?
Doubtful. Last week when there was an attempt, if it had gone to plan Starlink would have launched off 39A and the GPS III booster would have had its static fire at 40 later in the afternoon.
-
#197
by
thirtyone
on 11 Jul, 2020 21:17
-
1048.5 also didn’t pass static fire with flying colors, then aborted due an engine issue, and finally lost due to an engine issue.
Clearly 5th flights are posing a challenge right now in the learning curve of the reuse of these boosters.
There's a bunch of juicy info on reuse in a recent talk / Q&A with Tom Mueller. It's been reported in a few places that the booster failure was due to leftover alcohol in a sensor deadleg from cleaning the engines. The fix was to simply not do it. I don't think this particular failure mode was unique to a deeply reused rocket - just happened to be on a fifth reflight. However, it is related. Mueller claims that they found making a conventionally designed engine reusable was often just a matter of adding bits of material in the right places (usually points of stress concentration) to improve cycle life. It doesn't take much to go from 1 to 10 flights, apparently, if you actually looked into it. The biggest problem he mentioned with reusing the Merlin 1Ds was that kerolox is very sooty, and they need to do a pretty thorough, intensive cleaning to maintain engine performance on subsequent flights. This is partly why he expected Raptor to be practically better for reuse and refurbishment - methalox is just a lot cleaner.
Perhaps now that they stopped doing this additional cleaning step, they started finding extra soot buildup causing issues with sensors on the reused engines. The original failure on B1048.5 was caused by solvent in a sensor deadleg, and an oxygen sensor was reported to have issues after this SF. Maybe it turns out there's just still soot stuck in that deadleg, and they need to take the whole stack down for a much more thorough cleaning of the engine.
Alternatively, I wonder if they made the cleaning process change *after* these engines were already cleaned, and they're worried there's still signs of residual solvent in some of the deadlegs.
-
#198
by
FutureSpaceTourist
on 11 Jul, 2020 23:49
-
-
#199
by
billh
on 12 Jul, 2020 14:29
-
Perhaps now that they stopped doing this additional cleaning step, they started finding extra soot buildup causing issues with sensors on the reused engines. The original failure on B1048.5 was caused by solvent in a sensor deadleg, and an oxygen sensor was reported to have issues after this SF. Maybe it turns out there's just still soot stuck in that deadleg, and they need to take the whole stack down for a much more thorough cleaning of the engine.
Alternatively, I wonder if they made the cleaning process change *after* these engines were already cleaned, and they're worried there's still signs of residual solvent in some of the deadlegs.
The impression I got was that they simply needed to make sure they didn't leave the solvent in the lines. I don't think the comment implied they would skip the cleaning step.
