StrandedonEarth Posted June 12, 2020 Share Posted June 12, 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, tater said: The lack of a static fire is interesting. I imagine the conversation going something like this... Elon: Why are we still doing static fires? A: Because we've always done them.....? E: As I recall after yet another Boca Chica test "anomaly," if Musk gives the go-ahead, it's all good. Otherwise, you got some 'splainin' to do... Edited June 12, 2020 by StrandedonEarth Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted June 12, 2020 Share Posted June 12, 2020 Maybe they've been doing them because they want the launch team to have more experience—which they can get via just launching. Wonder what the cost of a static fire (launch) campaign is... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sh1pman Posted June 12, 2020 Share Posted June 12, 2020 48 minutes ago, StrandedonEarth said: I imagine the conversation going something like this... Elon: Why are we still doing static fires? A: Because we've always done them.....? I think this is the likeliest explanation. “Best part is no part, best process is no process”, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted June 13, 2020 Share Posted June 13, 2020 IIRC, the fact that SpaceX does static fires on the pad at all is unusual, ULA et al really don’t. It’s also quite arguable that, at this point, from the sheer amount of cumulative runtime they know their engine better than anyone else in the biz (‘cept maybe the Russians), and they know each individual engine better than anyone once they’ve been flown. They probably have a great big spreadsheet of the various foibles of each engine, maybe the past performance of this particular batch (plus the experience of the whole) is good enough that there’s nothing really to be learned/validated from a static fire. Or maybe they’re just in a hurry. Which seems less likely, since on this launch they actually have paying (non-Starlink) customers... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikegarrison Posted June 13, 2020 Share Posted June 13, 2020 37 minutes ago, sh1pman said: I think this is the likeliest explanation. “Best part is no part, best process is no process”, etc. Reducing part count and adding simplicity is absolutely standard engineering common wisdom. But I really hope you guys are wrong about thinking that whatever Elon says is what goes, particularly about safety processes. That's just not a good idea. Not because it's Musk, but because it's just not good practice to have anybody with other priorities (and you know he has other priorities) to have the ability to set aside safety processes at a whim. Now I'm not saying this static fire thing is necessary. Many other companies don't seem to think it is. Maybe SpaceX carefully evaluated their data and decided they no longer need it. Or that it doesn't add value in certain circumstances. Or whatever. It's just that the attitude I'm seeing here is surprisingly complacent. I know we're all a bunch of space gamers rather than actual SpaceX employees, so I'm assuming complacency here is meaningless. But wow, I've seen so many people be hyper critical about safety issues outside of SpaceX, but suddenly people are totally cool with the idea that any whim of Elon must be OK. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sh1pman Posted June 13, 2020 Share Posted June 13, 2020 33 minutes ago, mikegarrison said: Reducing part count and adding simplicity is absolutely standard engineering common wisdom. But I really hope you guys are wrong about thinking that whatever Elon says is what goes, particularly about safety processes. That's just not a good idea. Not because it's Musk, but because it's just not good practice to have anybody with other priorities (and you know he has other priorities) to have the ability to set aside safety processes at a whim. Now I'm not saying this static fire thing is necessary. Many other companies don't seem to think it is. Maybe SpaceX carefully evaluated their data and decided they no longer need it. Or that it doesn't add value in certain circumstances. Or whatever. It's just that the attitude I'm seeing here is surprisingly complacent. I know we're all a bunch of space gamers rather than actual SpaceX employees, so I'm assuming complacency here is meaningless. But wow, I've seen so many people be hyper critical about safety issues outside of SpaceX, but suddenly people are totally cool with the idea that any whim of Elon must be OK. Oh, I’m sure they thought this through and found good reasons to skip static fire. I didn’t mean that literally Elon just decided to cancel the whole thing because he thinks it’s a good idea, it most likely was a collective decision. I was just attributing it to that specific design philosophy that Elon and, possibly, other engineers at SpaceX have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted June 13, 2020 Share Posted June 13, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, mikegarrison said: Now I'm not saying this static fire thing is necessary. Many other companies don't seem to think it is. Maybe SpaceX carefully evaluated their data and decided they no longer need it. Or that it doesn't add value in certain circumstances. Or whatever. It's just that the attitude I'm seeing here is surprisingly complacent. I know we're all a bunch of space gamers rather than actual SpaceX employees, so I'm assuming complacency here is meaningless. But wow, I've seen so many people be hyper critical about safety issues outside of SpaceX, but suddenly people are totally cool with the idea that any whim of Elon must be OK. The usual answer to "static fires" of the short duration we see before launches (from people like Tory Bruno) has been that all launches have static fires—it's the bit before they let go of the launch clamps and/or light the SRMs. If there is a problem on engine startup, you turn them off, and go to space another day. I'm not seeing a safety issue at all here. There is no difference between a launch campaign and a static fire campaign at all. The vehicle is completely tanked and pressed for both. That means the safety risk of a static fire is identical to the risk for a launch. The only difference is if there is a valuable payload (read: customer payload) on top. For SpaceX, part of it was likely gathering data, and training their teams. The FL people are getting paid if they launch or not, might as well practice, and the reused boosters are obviously a new thing that needs more data gathered (are there any patterns of issues with reflown boosters?). Once they get enough of that data, what's the point of a static fire vs an abort at T+4 seconds? On a new booster, I bet they still do a static fire. On a flown booster, with a payload on top, seems like a waste of effort to me. It will be interesting to see if they continue with static fires for customer payloads (minus S2 and payload). If the rocket is fully integrated it seems to me that risk is actually lower without. Edited June 13, 2020 by tater Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted June 13, 2020 Share Posted June 13, 2020 Several years ago. "Wow! SpaceX is almost the only company doing static fires! How cool it is!" Present days. "Wow! SpaceX is almost going to stop doing static fires! How cool it is!" Conclusion. When SpaceX doesn't do something, it doesn't do this more perfectly that others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RCgothic Posted June 13, 2020 Share Posted June 13, 2020 (edited) That's not really fair. Space X have saved a lot of time and money in design and procurement doing static fires to validate engines rather than doing it in paperwork. It's therefore a good process. But when you've validated the engines with three entire missions and all associated tests, there's maybe diminishing returns. 9 hours ago, StrandedonEarth said: E: As I recall after yet another Boca Chica test "anomaly," if Musk gives the go-ahead, it's all good. Otherwise, you got some 'splainin' to do... What Elon said is "If you think a decision/design is bad and you don't speak up, you're in trouble. If you've raised an issue with me and we go ahead, I will take responsibility if there's a problem." That's not really the same thing as "anything Musk says goes" either. Edited June 13, 2020 by RCgothic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RCgothic Posted June 13, 2020 Share Posted June 13, 2020 (edited) Also it's SN7 first to the test site! Edited June 13, 2020 by RCgothic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nightside Posted June 13, 2020 Share Posted June 13, 2020 17 hours ago, tater said: For anyone already awake in some other part of the world, or staying up til OMG-thirty inthe morning: I guess having a newborn has some advantages... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VoidCosmos Posted June 13, 2020 Share Posted June 13, 2020 Just now, Nightside said: I guess having a newborn has some advantages... You're right Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RealKerbal3x Posted June 13, 2020 Share Posted June 13, 2020 (edited) 30 minutes ago, RCgothic said: Also it's SN7 first to the test site! Is it just me or are those canards a different shape to the ones that were on Mk1? Probably just the angle. Edited June 13, 2020 by RealKerbal3x Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nightside Posted June 13, 2020 Share Posted June 13, 2020 4 minutes ago, RealKerbal3x said: Is it just me or are those canards a different shape to the ones that were on Mk1? Probably just the angle. Seems like there was a comment from E a little while ago about a change, but I never saw a new design. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brotoro Posted June 13, 2020 Share Posted June 13, 2020 Falcon 9 in startup. Looking good. And we have liftoff! Successful staging. Interesting ‘fireflies’ coming off the booster. Must be the lighting, but I’ve never seen that before. Very interesting view of heating of the rear of booster. good entry burn. Of Course I Sill Love You is in dawn light Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brotoro Posted June 13, 2020 Share Posted June 13, 2020 (edited) And ship video stayed on for the booster landing. Nice. Good orbit! Edited June 13, 2020 by Brotoro Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultimate Steve Posted June 13, 2020 Share Posted June 13, 2020 Beautiful morning landing! Now, to bed for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RealKerbal3x Posted June 13, 2020 Share Posted June 13, 2020 Fantastic view of the landing! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nightside Posted June 13, 2020 Share Posted June 13, 2020 Was worried about all that fluid before the boostback, and what seemed like a lot of RCS firings, but I think it was just that sunrise lighting... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brotoro Posted June 13, 2020 Share Posted June 13, 2020 SkySat deployment was visible...1 and 2... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted June 13, 2020 Share Posted June 13, 2020 Yay for rocket. Lady is way too perky for this unkermly hour. now back to trying to find the wife’s car in the washer which also the pool which is also the beach. makes sense in context. No, not really. zzzzzzzZzzzzzzZZZZZZZZzzzz<snort>Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RealKerbal3x Posted June 13, 2020 Share Posted June 13, 2020 Seems like we got successful Starlink deploy. No video though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treveli Posted June 13, 2020 Share Posted June 13, 2020 Ok, someone help me. If I'm in northwest Florida, and the skies are clear, would I be able to see Falcon's exhaust at higher altitudes? Was driving to work and saw what looked like aircraft landing lights or a helicopter spotlight (that looked like they were in cloud or fog), but didn't realize till now the skies are clear, no fog, and it was at the right time and direction for the launch. Saw a pic on Twitter of the exhaust dispersing after launch and realized it kinda looked like what I saw. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zolotiyeruki Posted June 13, 2020 Share Posted June 13, 2020 2 hours ago, Nightside said: Was worried about all that fluid before the boostback, and what seemed like a lot of RCS firings, but I think it was just that sunrise lighting... I was wondering/worrying the same thing. It seemed like there were a lot of sparks (or particles of something) catching the light at regular intervals, coming off the engines. Maybe some leftover ice or water after launch? Or a slightly leaky valve letting a tiny bit of fuel or oxidizer out? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nightside Posted June 13, 2020 Share Posted June 13, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, zolotiyeruki said: I was wondering/worrying the same thing. It seemed like there were a lot of sparks (or particles of something) catching the light at regular intervals, coming off the engines. Maybe some leftover ice or water after launch? Or a slightly leaky valve letting a tiny bit of fuel or oxidizer out? Yeah, although it wouldn’t surprise me if this was normal, just with dramatic, side lighting as stage1 peaked over the terminator. Really cool to see it launch in night and land in the day. This launch/landing is definitely worth watching for any of you not up in the middle of the night with a 3 week-old baby. Edited June 13, 2020 by Nightside Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.