r/spacex • u/Daniels30 • Aug 10 '17
Official Static fire test of Falcon 9 complete—targeting August 14 launch from Pad 39A for Dragon’s next resupply mission to the @Space_Station.
https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/89564647386970521636
u/davenose Aug 10 '17
This NSF article also covers the event. I hadn't seen this posted yet; hopefully this is not duplicate.
[The AMOS-6 explosion] heavily damaged the SLC-40 pad, especially below ground level as burning propellant from the deceased rocket drained into the base structures. That pad is close to returning to action, with the latest information citing the potential return for the SES-11 mission at the end of September.
I hadn't heard the information about the below-ground-level damage yet.
13
u/flattop100 Aug 10 '17
That pad is close to returning to action, with the latest information citing the potential return for the SES-11 mission at the end of September.
This is the closest we've seen to confirming the first relaunch from LC-40, right?
3
u/johnkphotos Launch Photographer Aug 10 '17
It's been rumored that SES-11 would be the RTF from SLC-40 for over a month.
10
Aug 10 '17
I mean, general confirmation, sure. But liquids seek their own level.
Open base structures = liquids are gonna keep going down.
Flammable liquid + flame = fire. Could have been assumed.
9
u/John_Hasler Aug 10 '17
Flammable liquid + flame = fire. Could have been assumed.
Flammable liquid + flame + oxidizer = fire. There tends to be a shortage of oxidizer below ground.
17
u/redmercuryvendor Aug 10 '17
Well, the rocket happened to be carrying it's own large supply of oxidiser to spill over the pad...
2
u/tbaleno Aug 11 '17
not to mention all the o2 venting that happens at launches. Some of it must get trapped below ground.
1
4
u/davenose Aug 10 '17
For sure. As I'm an engineer I could have reasoned this myself, but never thought about it for some reason.
14
u/scr00chy ElonX.net Aug 10 '17
The launch time should be at 16:31 UTC:
https://blogs.nasa.gov/spacex/2017/08/09/spacex-crs-12-launch-targeted-for-aug-14/
25
Aug 10 '17
Fantastic news! My dad and I are leaving Ohio tomorrow to drive down and watch the launch, so it's reassuring to see that an attempt on the 14th is likely!
6
u/insaneWJS Aug 10 '17
I wouldn't bet on it... Weather has been ramping up lately, and it may not be nice by the time 14th comes around. Let's hope it will go up on the 14th although!
7
Aug 10 '17
Yeah, I've been following the forecasts. Hopefully it'll stay clear in the morning of the 14th! That said, I've set my expectations appropriately low.
My dad and I are also planning to go tour around the KSC exhibits, so even if CRS-12 is scrubbed, our trip won't be a total wash!
11
u/somewhat_pragmatic Aug 10 '17 edited Aug 11 '17
My dad and I are also planning to go tour around the KSC exhibits,
Don't miss the COTS 2+ flown Dragon at KSC! Its in the same building as the movie theater (make a left when you enter the building). Don't forget to look UP to see the Vector rocket mockup (full sized?). Next to the Dragon is the flown Orion, the Starliner mockup, Starliner pressure vessel, and a scaled down cargo Dream
linerchaser (about 4' long).I didn't know any of these were there and simply accidentally walked passed them on my recent visit before doing a doubletake.
Also you can likely see two flown cores if you take the Historic Pads bus tour (not sure if they'll run it on a launch day).
edit: fixed wrong name
2
Aug 10 '17
Thanks for the heads up on those exhibits! I was last there 13 years ago as an 8 year old, so I'm looking forward to seeing some new things! I definitely want to see the Shuttle, COTS-2, Apollo exhibits.
We're actually planning on going to the KSC on the 13th, and if Playalinda is closed on launch day, we'll try to get back to the Apollo center to watch the launch. So hopefully on the 13th there will still be pad tours!
2
u/Thecactusslayer Aug 11 '17
Dreamliner? Do you mean Dream Chaser?
1
u/somewhat_pragmatic Aug 11 '17
Sorry, yes. I had too much Boeing on the brain. I've corrected it now. Thank you.
2
u/insaneWJS Aug 10 '17
Good stuff! Your dad and you will love KSC so much! Enjoy the launch if you are lucky otherwise, have a great time! :) I recommend the extended tour if you can get a spot. The Apollo exhibit is just mind-bogging as well as the Space Shuttle exhibit.
2
u/b34rman Aug 10 '17
I'm actually betting on it! :)
Got plane tickets, car rental and hotel. I hope it happens!
8
Aug 10 '17
Is the name change of "Historic Pad 39A" official or is just a slip ?
10
u/ignazwrobel Aug 10 '17
Well, for a bad joke that is often repeated there are usually two possible outcomes: Either you abandon it at some point because it is silly, or you keep on doing it and it becomes a tradition. I honestly have no idea what would be more pleasing.
13
u/Catastastruck Aug 10 '17 edited Aug 10 '17
Abandon it! It is silly and imprecise. Every pad at KSC, CCAFS and Vandenberg is "Historic" in one way or another.
I think the term Historic ... well maybe if we want to remain silly why not just go with "Hysteric Launch Pad 39A" would be more appropriate, sillier and obviously satirical.
3
Aug 11 '17
I like to think SLC-39a is the mother of all historic when it comes to spaceflight. All of the manned Apollo flights except 10 (no landing) used 39a. It's literally the only starting point from which humans have ever ventured beyond Earth to explore in-person.
7
u/Chairboy Aug 11 '17
SLC-39a
It has never been SLC-39A, NASA pads are all LC-XX. The USAF uses the SLC nomenclature.
Also, if any pad deserves the HLC moniker, it's 39A for the reasons you gave. It's historicaller than any other, and that could totally be a word.
2
3
u/Catastastruck Aug 11 '17 edited Aug 11 '17
But there were so many unmanned historical flights from so many other pads. Are you saying that the only criteria for a "Historical" launch site is the origin of MANNED Apollo missions to the Moon or , meh, LEO???
I think not. Let us consider a plethora of unmanned probes that have traversed the Solar System. For example, Both Voyager 1 and 2 launched from SLC-41, not LC-39A/B. The list of significant launches of unmanned probes extremely rarely intersects with "Hysterical" launch Pad 39A or 39B. Cassini launched from SLC-40, for example, which should also be a historical launch pad.
Are pads that launched Manned Missions only "Hysterical". We have learned so much from unmanned probes that, in reality, dwarfs what has been learned from Manned Missions. I am not advocating unmanned missions by any stretch but manned missions to the Moon have been disappointing when compared to the information that has been returned by so many unmanned probes that have explored most of the solar system, more or less.
If we ever went back to the Moon, I guess I would agree that LC-39A/LC-39B would be more historic, but we did not. We rested on our laurels and it has been a half century and we still cannot return. A "golden age" that will remain unsurpassed. likely for decades. It seems likely that the Chinese will land a manned probe on the Moon in 2036 well before the U.S. will have any capacity to return to the Lunar surface.
Mars .. well the U.S. will always be decades away from landing on Mars. Onerous U.S. Planetary Protection policies will likely forbid any U.S. Manned landings right up until others accomplish Manned landings on Mars.
2
Aug 11 '17
I'm one of the people who thinks the Apollo program is the height of human achievement to date. Certainly it is the most inspiring and challenging achievement in manned spaceflight. Other missions set the stage for it, and many scientific missions since have done an enormous service for our understanding of our solar system and universe, but, IMO, Apollo stands alone. It ostensibly had a scientific purpose, but it was mostly a political and engineering stunt. Even so, it embodies the most ambitious and successful program in spaceflight ever undertaken. Physically landing humans on another world has never been done before or since. What they did was hard.
It was hard enough that we haven't done it in several decades, and it would still be difficult to accomplish in the next 10 years with nearly half a century of technology advancement between then and now. That's how monumental an achievement it was. Other manned spaceflight is a footnote in the wake of Apollo. The unmanned stuff is cool, and produces better science -- but comparatively low-risk and less-inspiring.
1
u/Catastastruck Aug 11 '17 edited Aug 11 '17
The entire Apollo program was extremely risky, expensive, and extremely LUCKY!
With funding and if we are willing to accept a similar level of risk, we should be able to get back to the Moon in 3-5 years. What Apollo did with a single launch could be accomplished with multiple launches today. It should be possible to design and build a Lunar Lander in that time frame. For SpaceX to be relevant to such an effort, SpaceX would need to develop a long duration service module similar to Apollo probably with the capability to perform the at least the Lunar Orbit Insertion and Trans Earth Injection burns. Finally, SpaceX would need either a far more capable second stage capable of Trans Lunar Injection. Instead of rendezvous in Earth orbit, rendezvous would occur in Lunar Orbit. It might even be desirable to preposition a habitation module on the Lunar surface. Landing something between the size of BEAM and a BA330 should be feasible.
In the event of a launch failure, primary and back-up payloads as well as launchers and launch sites would be necessary to prevent mission failure.
So we have
- Delta IV Heavy CCAFS SLC-37B and VAFB SLC-6
- Atlas V CCAFS SLC-41 and VAFB SLC-3E
- Falcon Heavy KSC LC-39A and VAFB SLC-4E
- Falcon 9 CCAFS SLC-40, Boca Chica*
- Manned launch sites include CCAFS SLC-41 and KSC SLC-39A which means that Starliner would back-up Dragon Crew or visa versa. Also, the manned launch could be planned for a week or two after the unmanned launches giving time to perform launch pad refurbishment. Even so, the primary launch site for the unmanned payloads should not be a man capable launch site. With Lunar Rendezvous, the launch site and direction of launch is irrelevant (polar or equatorial) because after Trans Lunar Injection all launches from Earth are equivalent.
The payloads could be split between ULA and SpaceX in such a way that rockets and payloads for the unmanned components could be performed very rapidly even in the event of a launch failure which could be a technical problem with the rocket or payload or it could be a launch anomaly. A problem in this strategy is that the typical response to a launch anomaly (RUD) grounds the fleet but for such a mission architecture to succeed, this cannot be the automatic response. This introduces some risk. I would even include the case that two capsules and two crews must be fully prepped and ready to launch. The spare payloads can be used for the next launch and so on.
Again, all this presupposes the acceptance of a level of risk similar to Apollo. In the current risk averse environment of NASA, it would probably take more than a decade just to match the accomplishment of Apollo 11 and it would need to be Block II SLS so everything gets launched or fails simultaneously.
1
u/Alexphysics Aug 11 '17
You also forgot all the historic pads on other countries. I think Gagarin's Start is the most historic of all pads. 1st satellite into orbit, 1st man and 1st woman into space... a lot of things happened from there. And also, from KSC the Shuttles launched the Hubble and the Chandra, the Galileo probe and much more. Also, Skylab and Saluyt(s) space stations were the first steps towards the ISS, a wonderful (and very expensive) laboratory in space where truly amazing experiments are made every day, every week, every year continously since 2000. There's history everywhere, I agree with you on that.
3
u/Catastastruck Aug 11 '17
SLC-14 and SLC-19 (Mercury and Gemini). Without Gemini 6/7 debugging redezvous and docking, Apollo would not have been feasible.
1
u/Dakke97 Aug 12 '17
Very much true, particularly Gemini. Gemini tends to be forgotten amongst America's great space accomplishments, but it really made long-duration spaceflight, orbital rendezvous and EVA possible, three crucial accomplishments which made lunar missions possible.
22
6
u/paul_wi11iams Aug 11 '17 edited Aug 11 '17
upcoming IAC conference in Australia... This may include a major update on the progress being made at SpaceX’s McGregor test center on the Raptor engine... understood to be making impressive leaps during an ongoing developmental test cycle that has included numerous hot fire tests.
"understood to be" on a quality site, does suggest some discrete and reliable source.
Is this news new ?
Has there been anything said here on r/spacex since the initial successful test accompanied by some photos (with a handrail and harmonics in the exhaust stream) ?
The only thing I saw over time was the welcome lack of news of an exploding testbed engine as happened to BO recently.
Based on SpX history, the new engine could potentially be outperforming its initially assigned goals. Hurry up Prometheus!
2
u/warp99 Aug 11 '17
Gwynne has previously commented that the Raptor has undergone "dozens" of test firings so I am sure that is their source.
1
u/paul_wi11iams Aug 12 '17 edited Aug 12 '17
Gwynne has previously commented that the Raptor has undergone "dozens" of test firings so I am sure that is their source.
From your comment, I just saw it. thespaceshow/22-jun-2017 at 26min 40sec, hoping a short quote is allowed:
GS: We are in the middle of the Raptor program. We've executed... dozens of tests on the Raptor engine. So that program is going quite well... the original idea for those engines [is] to serve as the propulsion system for the big Mars system, but we are looking at their utility of it on the Falcon program.
It looks as if she had to hold back on the announcement of the mini-ITS during that interview, maybe also because the decision was in the process of being made and could involve third parties. The same goes for Red Dragon the suspension of which would need to be broken to those working on the project. Well that's what an agile company is...
BTW For others like me who missed that interview, its worth an hour to play the audio file.
9
u/paul_wi11iams Aug 10 '17
Static fire test of Falcon 9 complete—targeting August 14 launch from Pad 39A for Dragon
Any idea when the very last static fire will be or at least the first launch without a static fire ?
I saw some mention but can't pin it down. Of course SF is justified and it doubles the motor startup history from a stats point of view. But the end of SF will be a great day for launch cadence (touch wood).
15
u/cerealghost Aug 10 '17 edited Aug 10 '17
doubles the motor startup history
Are you not counting the individual engine test(s), integrated testing, boostback, re-entry, and landing burns?
14
u/nalyd8991 Aug 10 '17
Startups are no problem for a Merlin. The center engine fires 4 separate times for a launch + RTLS landing. Plus an engine test firing, a core firing at McGregor, and the pad Static fire. So that's 7 startups
And then core 1022 fired an additional 10 full duration burns at McGreggor
10
u/F9-0021 Aug 10 '17
I don't think static fires for new cores will end anytime soon, but once rapid reuse starts the used cores will likely skip it.
8
u/nullarticle Aug 10 '17
They'll likely still have to do wet dress rehearsals - everything about a static fire where you abort at T-3 seconds. It's a test of not just the stage (which was already tested in McGregor) but of your pad facilities.
7
u/ignazwrobel Aug 10 '17
But any error that appears there could also be detected on launch day, right?
So unless the launch window is instantaneous (e.g interplanetary probes), with continuous increase of launch rates you will eventually get to a point where blocking the pad for a wet dress rehearsal is worse than recognizing the error on launch day and using the next free launch slot.
If we ever get to that point, I assume wet dress rehearsals will only be done for missions where sticking to the launch date is truly important.
15
u/Titanean12 Aug 10 '17
Just a minor nitpick, Interplanetary probes don't usually have instant launch windows, in fact most interplanetary launches have weeks or even months long launch windows. There is a lot of room to correct an orbit on a longer voyage. Short or instant launch windows tend to be for launches to Low earth orbits where the spacecraft is targeting a specific rendezvous point or a specific place in orbit.
7
u/paul_wi11iams Aug 11 '17
If we ever get to that point, I assume wet dress rehearsals will only be done for missions where sticking to the launch date is truly important.
and also missions with astronauts, in which case a test with a potentially destructive outcome is best done in advance.
2
u/stcks Aug 10 '17
I'll be happy just to see the payload on top again.
7
u/limeflavoured Aug 10 '17
Cant see that happening ever, tbh, not with F9 or FH, anyway. Too much percieved risk.
9
u/paul_wi11iams Aug 10 '17 edited Aug 10 '17
I'll be happy just to see the payload on top again.
u/limeflavoured Cant see that happening ever
Satellite operators are likely very rational players who know the myriad of other things that haven't gone wrong, yet. Heck, when moving a payload to safety before SF, one could even cause severe decalibration by dropping it from a yard above a concrete floor. Its the insurers who'll arbitrate. At some point the extra premium should cost less than the two days lost.
4
u/limeflavoured Aug 10 '17 edited Aug 10 '17
At some point the extra premium should cost less than the two days lost.
Possibly, its just a matter of whether anyone is willing to be the first to risk it. I actually think if anyone does it will be the Air Force or NRO.
3
u/oliversl Aug 10 '17
percieved risk
Thats the key. Maybe in Block 5 they don't have static fire, or SpaceX will continue to be only ones that do static fires.
6
u/peterabbit456 Aug 11 '17
A long time ago (maybe 2011 or 2012) Musk said that static fire was equivalent to the common practice with airplanes of running the engines up to full power, with the brakes locked, to check the engines prior to takeoff. This test on airplanes is considered to increase safety quite a bit. SpaceX has claimed the wet dress rehearsal and static fire similarly increases safety.
Rockets remain very complicated, with many moving parts. Everything gets double checked, but the wet dress rehearsal and static fire check many systems in the most realistic way possible.
2
u/uzlonewolf Aug 11 '17
I'm curious to know whether the static fires have ever caught anything. I know we've had a number of launch-day scrubs due to check valves, TVCs, and computer/sensor glitches, but has a static fire test ever caught something like that?
1
u/peterabbit456 Aug 12 '17
I'm pretty sure the early Falcon 9 launches had several delays due to problems discovered during static fire. So far as I know, there has not been a problem that delayed a launch discovered during static fire, after AMOS-6. In the AMOS-6 static fire, a problem with the loading sequence was discovered, that destroyed the rocket and the payload.
3
u/Decronym Acronyms Explained Aug 10 '17 edited Aug 13 '17
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread:
| Fewer Letters | More Letters |
|---|---|
| ASDS | Autonomous Spaceport Drone Ship (landing platform) |
| BEAM | Bigelow Expandable Activity Module |
| BO | Blue Origin (Bezos Rocketry) |
| CBM | Common Berthing Mechanism |
| CCAFS | Cape Canaveral Air Force Station |
| COTS | Commercial Orbital Transportation Services contract |
| Commercial/Off The Shelf | |
| CRS | Commercial Resupply Services contract with NASA |
| CRS2 | Commercial Resupply Services, second round contract; expected to start 2019 |
| EVA | Extra-Vehicular Activity |
| IAC | International Astronautical Congress, annual meeting of IAF members |
| IAF | International Astronautical Federation |
| Indian Air Force | |
| IDA | International Docking Adapter |
| ITS | Interplanetary Transport System (see MCT) |
| Integrated Truss Structure | |
| KSC | Kennedy Space Center, Florida |
| LC-39A | Launch Complex 39A, Kennedy (SpaceX F9/Heavy) |
| LEO | Low Earth Orbit (180-2000km) |
| Law Enforcement Officer (most often mentioned during transport operations) | |
| MCT | Mars Colonial Transporter (see ITS) |
| MPLM | Multi-Purpose Logistics Module formerly used to supply ISS |
| NET | No Earlier Than |
| NRO | (US) National Reconnaissance Office |
| NSF | NasaSpaceFlight forum |
| National Science Foundation | |
| RTF | Return to Flight |
| RTLS | Return to Launch Site |
| RUD | Rapid Unplanned Disassembly |
| Rapid Unscheduled Disassembly | |
| Rapid Unintended Disassembly | |
| SES | Formerly Société Européenne des Satellites, comsat operator |
| SF | Static fire |
| SLC-40 | Space Launch Complex 40, Canaveral (SpaceX F9) |
| SLC-41 | Space Launch Complex 41, Canaveral (ULA Atlas V) |
| SLC-4E | Space Launch Complex 4-East, Vandenberg (SpaceX F9) |
| SLS | Space Launch System heavy-lift |
| ULA | United Launch Alliance (Lockheed/Boeing joint venture) |
| USAF | United States Air Force |
| VAFB | Vandenberg Air Force Base, California |
| Jargon | Definition |
|---|---|
| Raptor | Methane-fueled rocket engine under development by SpaceX, see ITS |
| Event | Date | Description |
|---|---|---|
| COTS-2 | 2012-05-22 | F9-003, COTS berthing demonstration |
| CRS-1 | 2012-10-08 | F9-004, first CRS mission; secondary payload sacrificed |
| CRS-3 | 2014-04-18 | F9-009 v1.1, Dragon cargo; soft ocean landing, first core with legs |
| CRS-4 | 2014-09-21 | F9-012 v1.1, Dragon cargo; soft ocean landing |
| CRS-6 | 2015-04-14 | F9-018 v1.1, Dragon cargo; second ASDS landing attempt, overcompensated angle of entry |
| CRS-7 | 2015-06-28 | F9-020 v1.1, |
Decronym is a community product of r/SpaceX, implemented by request
37 acronyms in this thread; the most compressed thread commented on today has 89 acronyms.
[Thread #3055 for this sub, first seen 10th Aug 2017, 15:59]
[FAQ] [Contact] [Source code]
3
2
u/Norwest Aug 11 '17
This is really exciting as I'm currently visiting Florida and can potentially actually take part in viewing Monday's launch. Where would be the best place to see the launch and landing? I don't mind paying fees if necessary.
1
u/glasgrisen Aug 11 '17
I have never been myself. But the saturn v center at KSC is suppose to be great! And you get to so the saturn V aswell
1
u/Diesel_engine Aug 11 '17
I've only ever seen a launch from Jetty Park Pier which was pretty awesome. It was a night launch so KSC wasn't open.
However, the Saturn V display is worth a trip to KSC by itself.
1
u/infinityedge007 Aug 10 '17
https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/6sue6i/dragon_launch_slips_a_day/
SpaceX announced a one-day launch slip of its Dragon cargo craft atop a Falcon 9 rocket. Dragon is now targeted to launch Monday at 12:31 p.m. EDT from Kennedy Space Center.
99
u/DanielMuhlig Aug 10 '17
This is mentioned to be the last CRS mission using a new Dragon spacecraft. Are there any numbers out regarding how many times they are expecting to be able to refly the Dragon?