Author Topic: SpaceX F9 : Starlink v1.0 L17 : KSC LC-39A : 4 March 2021 (0824 UTC) (Read 179147 times)

Ken the Bin · « **Reply #160 on:** 02/11/2021 05:11 pm »

Right after I posted the above comment, I got a new Space Debris with seven days canceling and replacing the two-day one shown above.

Quote from: NGA

111748Z FEB 21
HYDROPAC 496/21(GEN).
WESTERN SOUTH PACIFIC.
1. HAZARDOUS OPERATIONS, SPACE DEBRIS
160811Z TO 160904Z FEB, ALTERNATE
170749Z TO 170842Z, 180728Z TO 180821Z,
190706Z TO 190759Z, 200645Z TO 200738Z,
210623Z TO 210716Z AND 220602Z TO 220655Z FEB
IN AREA BOUND BY
29-43S 060-07E, 24-55S 064-27E,
38-45S 084-30E, 45-12S 099-45E,
49-46S 119-13E, 50-42S 138-19E,
48-50S 156-44E, 51-46S 158-08E,
54-42S 148-32E, 56-20S 131-03E,
55-52S 107-50E, 49-11S 085-05E,
34-32S 064-13E.
2. CANCEL HYDROPAC 494/21.
3. CANCEL THIS MSG 220755Z FEB 21.

FutureSpaceTourist · « **Reply #161 on:** 02/12/2021 08:06 am »

https://twitter.com/spacexfleet/status/1360151074397704195

Quote

Just Read the Instructions droneship is about to depart Port Canaveral for a second attempt at the Starlink V1 L17 mission.

FutureSpaceTourist · « **Reply #162 on:** 02/12/2021 04:22 pm »

L-4 launch weather forecast is 60% GO

Ken the Bin · « **Reply #163 on:** 02/13/2021 05:04 am »

We now have a one-day slip to this launch, to Wednesday, February 17 at ~05:55 UTC.

Quote from: NGA

130526Z FEB 21
NAVAREA IV 135/21(11,26).
WESTERN NORTH ATLANTIC.
FLORIDA.
1. HAZARDOUS OPERATIONS, ROCKET LAUNCHING
170540Z TO 170685Z FEB, ALTERNATE
180519Z TO 180637Z, 190457Z TO 190615Z,
200436Z TO 200554Z, 210414Z TO 210532Z,
AND 220353Z TO 220511Z FEB
IN AREAS BOUND BY:
A. 28-39-10N 080-37-48W, 29-00-00N 080-14-00W,
29-15-00N 079-56-00W, 29-17-00N 079-50-00W,
29-11-00N 079-44-00W, 29-07-00N 079-47-00W,
28-50-00N 080-02-00W, 28-34-00N 080-22-00W,
28-30-21N 080-32-58W.
B. 31-57-00N 076-56-00W, 33-17-00N 076-03-00W,
33-31-00N 074-59-00W, 33-10-00N 074-36-00W,
32-27-00N 074-46-00W, 31-42-00N 076-41-00W.
2. CANCEL NAVAREA IV 128/21.
3. CANCEL THIS MSG 220611Z FEB 21.

Quote from: NGA

130546Z FEB 21
HYDROPAC 510/21(GEN).
SOUTHERN INDIAN OCEAN.
1. HAZARDOUS OPERATIONS, SPACE DEBRIS
170749Z TO 170842Z FEB, ALTERNATE
180728Z TO 180821Z, 190706Z TO 190759Z,
200645Z TO 200738Z, 210623Z TO 210716Z AND
220602Z TO 220655Z FEB
IN AREA BOUND BY
29-43S 060-07E, 24-55S 064-27E,
38-45S 084-30E, 45-12S 099-45E,
49-46S 119-13E, 50-42S 138-19E,
48-50S 156-44E, 51-46S 158-08E,
54-42S 148-32E, 56-20S 131-03E,
55-52S 107-50E, 49-11S 085-05E,
34-32S 064-13E.
2. CANCEL HYDROPAC 496/21.
3. CANCEL THIS MSG 220755Z FEB 21.

Jansen · « **Reply #164 on:** 02/13/2021 05:21 pm »

Ben Cooper confirming:

Quote

Falcon 9 will launch the twentieth Starlink batch from pad 39A on February 17 at 12:55am EST

FutureSpaceTourist · « **Reply #165 on:** 02/14/2021 04:16 pm »

L-3 launch weather forecast is 80% GO

Jansen · « **Reply #166 on:** 02/15/2021 02:32 am »

https://twitter.com/TSKelso/status/1361135065380524033

Ken the Bin · « **Reply #167 on:** 02/15/2021 03:24 pm »

L-2 weather forecast: 80% 'Go' for Feb 17, 50% 'Go' for Feb 18; booster recovery weather risk is moderate both days.

CraigLieb · « **Reply #168 on:** 02/15/2021 05:12 pm »

Quote from: Jansen on 02/13/2021 05:21 pm

Ben Cooper confirming:

Quote
Falcon 9 will launch the twentieth Starlink batch from pad 39A on February 17 at 12:55am EST

I like the cookie analogy. This is the 17 batch of the v 1.0 Starlink satellites made. Just because they didn’t get put on the tray and served before the next batch was made and put out for use doesn’t take away from their heritage in the production line.

Jansen · « **Reply #169 on:** 02/15/2021 06:13 pm »

11 launch delays might be a new record for Falcon 9.

oldAtlas_Eguy · « **Reply #170 on:** 02/15/2021 11:45 pm »

Quote from: Jansen on 02/15/2021 06:13 pm

11 launch delays might be a new record for Falcon 9.

To get a handle on it need to seperate the weather slips from the "other" slips/delays. Not all of the other slips/delays are due to a technical issue but can be support systems like ASDS availability and fairing catchers. Sometimes the slip/delay is a complex mixture of several items.

aero · « **Reply #171 on:** 02/16/2021 01:09 am »

Quote from: oldAtlas_Eguy on 02/15/2021 11:45 pm

Quote from: Jansen on 02/15/2021 06:13 pm
11 launch delays might be a new record for Falcon 9.
To get a handle on it need to seperate the weather slips from the "other" slips/delays. Not all of the other slips/delays are due to a technical issue but can be support systems like ASDS availability and fairing catchers. Sometimes the slip/delay is a complex mixture of several items.

While that is true, delays are delays, no matter the cause, and in the future they will slow the progress to Mars, just as they are slowing progress to operational Starlink today.

TJL · « **Reply #172 on:** 02/16/2021 03:25 am »

Possible launch delay due to failed booster landing this evening.

pb2000 · « **Reply #173 on:** 02/16/2021 03:34 am »

Quote from: TJL on 02/16/2021 03:25 am

Possible launch delay due to failed booster landing this evening?

Telemetry was solid throughout the event, so unless they see something puzzling, I doubt it.

Jansen · « **Reply #174 on:** 02/16/2021 04:36 am »

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2021/02/starlink-l19/

Quote

The next mission, as of 05:00 UTC February 16, is the oft-delayed Starlink v1.0 L17 mission, originally planned for late-January but now targeting the early morning hours of February 17 — though this is likely to slip based on the L19 booster issue.

Jansen · « **Reply #175 on:** 02/16/2021 07:41 am »

Getting unofficial word that launch is delayed. Probably official confirmation in a few hours.

Raul · « **Reply #176 on:** 02/16/2021 08:57 am »

Next launch date slip to NET 19 Feb 05:12 UTC, alternatively 20-22 Feb, according to Stage2 re-entry NOTAM update in Melbourne FIR.

Quote

MELBOURNE (FIR/FIC/ACC/COM/MET)
NOTAM #: F0547/21 Class: International Status: Active Issue Date UTC: 02/16/2021 0857 Start Date UTC: 02/19/2021 0706 End Date UTC: 02/22/2021 0655
F0547/21 NOTAMR F0509/21
Q) YMMM/QWMLW/IV/BO/W/000/999/5220S09818E999
A) YMMM
B) 2102190706 C) 2102220655
D) 2102190706 TO 2102190759
2102200645 TO 2102200738
2102210623 TO 2102210716
2102220602 TO 2102220655
E) ROCKET LAUNCH WILL TAKE PLACE
FLW RECEIVED FM GOVERNMENT OF UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
HAZARDOUS OPS WILL BE CONDUCTED FOR ATMOSPHERIC RE-ENTRY AND
SPLASHDOWN OF LAUNCH VEHICLE OP X0521 FALCON-9 STARLINK V1.0-L17 WI
THE FOLLOWING AREAS:
FM 2943S 06007E
TO 2455S 06427E
TO 3845S 08430E
TO 4512S 09945E
TO 4946S 11913E
TO 5042S 13819E
TO 4850S 15644E
TO 5146S 15808E
TO 5442S 14832E
TO 5620S 13103E
TO 5552S 10750E
TO 4911S 08505E
TO 3432S 06413E TO BEGINNING
PRI RE-ENTRY 19TH
BACKUP AS PER FIELD D
F) SFC G) UNL

eeergo · « **Reply #177 on:** 02/16/2021 10:46 am »

Quote from: pb2000 on 02/16/2021 03:34 am

Quote from: TJL on 02/16/2021 03:25 am
Possible launch delay due to failed booster landing this evening?
Telemetry was solid throughout the event, so unless they see something puzzling, I doubt it.

This mission has seen at least one (and very probably several more) delay due to the need to inspect/change out something in the vehicle, additional inspections, and an actual aborted hot fire. The just-launched mission has also seen some delays seemingly related to something on the vehicle - and appears to have suffered an engine loss *during ascent* that led to loss of control during the subsequent burn, not being a "life leader" stage at its 5th flight (however amazing that statement reads anyway).

The last engine out triggered an investigation that uncovered a quality control issue with the discovery of a systematic (as opposed to one-off) defect: the lacquer/isopropyl affair.

Summing both factors together, it'd be unreasonable to expect no impact: they've clearly already seen "something puzzling".

Elthiryel · « **Reply #178 on:** 02/16/2021 11:05 am »

Quote from: eeergo on 02/16/2021 10:46 am

The just-launched mission has also seen some delays seemingly related to something on the vehicle - and appears to have suffered an engine loss *during ascent* that led to loss of control during the subsequent burn, not being a "life leader" stage at its 5th flight (however amazing that statement reads anyway).

The telemetry comparison with the previous Starlink mission does not support a theory about the engine loss during ascent, rather during an entry burn: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=52895.msg2192524#msg2192524

It doesn't mean it's not worth being thoroughly checked though, landing reliability is very important for the launch cadence.

eeergo · « **Reply #179 on:** 02/16/2021 12:32 pm »

Quote from: Elthiryel on 02/16/2021 11:05 am

Quote from: eeergo on 02/16/2021 10:46 am
The just-launched mission has also seen some delays seemingly related to something on the vehicle - and appears to have suffered an engine loss *during ascent* that led to loss of control during the subsequent burn, not being a "life leader" stage at its 5th flight (however amazing that statement reads anyway).

The telemetry comparison with the previous Starlink mission does not support a theory about the engine loss during ascent, rather during an entry burn: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=52895.msg2192524#msg2192524

It doesn't mean it's not worth being thoroughly checked though, landing reliability is very important for the launch cadence.

Fair enough, but the pre-MECO "bucket" (in the interval [145,157] s) does look much more out of family than other recent flights (around 15-20% inferior), in spite of less noisy TM. See, for instance:

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=46524.msg2167636#msg2167636
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=52045.msg2170673#msg2170673

I would hesitate to claim "the telemetry comparison does not support a theory about engine loss during ascent" until post-MECO MET with the available data. That is not to say it unequivocally supports it either, so I should have better qualified that section of my statement.

I would also argue checking the engine issue thoroughly is a necessity regardless of the importance of recovery towards future launch cadence, since it could as well have popped up during ascent (even if it didn't in this situation, which again is debatable), unless the failure signature they have is exclusive of reentry conditions, if there's such a thing.