Falcon 9 at Cape Canaveral

[Star Voyager]

Engine test rescheduled for tomorrow.

 

[orb]

Calendar Event for Launch

I added Calendar Event for planned launch of Falcon 9. This is ranged event, and it will be updated if date or time changes.

You can add a reminder for this event, to not miss the launch.

 

[N_Molson]

As long as the launchpad isn't seriously damaged by the launch, it's ok !

Which makes me think... Who would have to pay the repairs ? NASA or SpaceX ? :hmm:

Seriously, I think it will be a partial success as long as they get the Dragon vehicule to orbit. After that... wait and see

 

[DaveS]

As long as the launchpad isn't seriously damaged by the launch, it's ok !

Which makes me think... Who would have to pay the repairs ? NASA or SpaceX ? :hmm:

SpaceX as they own the vehicle and pad. And this is a SpaceX demo launch of the Falcon 9, the Dragon on top is a complete dummy. NASA only pays for the cargo in the Dragon if it gets to ISS intact. If it doesn't, SpaceX won't see a cent of NASA COTS/CRS money.

 

[clickypens]

wasn't there a test-firing today? how'd that go? or has it not happened yet?

 

[n122vu]

They're still trying: http://www.spaceflightnow.com/falcon9/001/status.html

---------- Post added at 02:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:55 PM ----------

Scrubbed for the day.

 

[anemazoso]

Spaceflightnow is reporting that the test is scrubbed for today though the live video feed shows there is still propellant venting fron the stage.

Aparently they attempted to fire and the countdownd was stopped right as they lit the stage at around 1:30pm EST.

 

[SiberianTiger]

Any hint on why did they scrub it?

 

[GEScott71]

A bit more info from the local paper:

http://flametrench.flatoday.net/2010/03/spacex-falcon-9-test-triggered-engine.html

Not sure if it was an abort/shutdown yet though.

 

[N_Molson]

Engine test has been performed and looks successful, though it's unclear if the engine has burned exactly 3.5 seconds.

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/falcon9/001/status.html

 

[Arrowstar]

If it cut off early, then I would suspect something went wrong and the flight computers killed it. If that's the case, then I would also suspect the late March inaugural launch date could also slip. To me it didn't look as if they got the 3.5 seconds in, but I'm going to wait for SpaceX on this one...

---------- Post added at 08:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:03 PM ----------

SpaceFlightNow has a statement that SpaceX released this evening regarding the test:

SpaceX has provided the following statement after today's static fire attempt: "Today SpaceX performed our first Static Fire for the Falcon 9 launch vehicle. We counted down to T-2 seconds and aborted on Spin Start. Given that this was our first abort event on this pad, we decided to scrub for the day to get a good look at the rocket before trying again. Everything looks great at first glance."
"We completed pad preps on time and with good execution. The integrated countdown with the range included holdfire checks, S-band telemetry, C-band, and FTS simulated checks. We completed helium, liquid oxygen (LOX), and fuel loads to within tenths of a percent of T-zero conditions. Tanks pressed nominally and we passed all Terminal count, flight software, and ground software abort checks right down to T-2 seconds. We encountered a problem with the spin start system and aborted nominally."
"As part of the abort, we close the pre-valves to isolate the engines from the propellant tank and purge the residual propellants. The brief flames seen on the video are burn off of LOX and kerosene on the pad. The engines did not ignite and there was no engine fire."
"We detanked and safed the vehicle and launch pad. Preliminary review shows all other systems required to reach full ignition were within specification. All other pad systems worked nominally. Inspections will be complete tonight. Tomorrow will consist of data review and procedure updates. Commodities will be replenished tomorrow including TEA-TEB load, LOX and helium deliveries."
"We'll look to do the next static fire attempt in three or four days."

http://spaceflightnow.com/falcon9/001/status.html

 

[Chupacabra]

That's a pretty descriptive statement. I was imagining less information, as is their characteristic.

 

[tblaxland]

I assume the "spin start" referred to is the spinning up of the turbo pump shaft. Any one know what equipment is used to accomplish this? Obviously the pre-burner can't function until the turbo pumps have at least some momentum...

 

[anemazoso]

This I think is a confidence booster. And I suspect, a good learning experiance for SpaceX.

Go SpaceX!!:thumbup:

 

[Urwumpe]

I assume the "spin start" referred to is the spinning up of the turbo pump shaft. Any one know what equipment is used to accomplish this? Obviously the pre-burner can't function until the turbo pumps have at least some momentum...

The most conservative way is using a small pyrotechnic gas generator to spin the turbine, but the Russian RD-17x family for example uses a small start motor in the launch complex for spinning the single horizontally mounted pump shaft.

In this case, the acronyms TEA and TEB are the key word what was used:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triethylaluminium
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triethylborane

 

[tblaxland]

In this case, the acronyms TEA and TEB are the key word what was used:

So TEA/TEB are used to start the turbine as well as to ignite the engine?

 

[Andy44]

Didn't the Falcon 1 abort an engine start once and then go on to launch within a few hours anyway? I know they can recycle these Falcons at an amazing speed after a scrub. If nothing else comes from the program, their pad system alone is quite remarkable.

 

[tl8]

Didn't the Falcon 1 abort an engine start once and then go on to launch within a few hours anyway? I know they can recycle these Falcons at an amazing speed after a scrub. If nothing else comes from the program, their pad system alone is quite remarkable.

That was Falcon Flight 3, They launched again within 45 minutes.

They could of done the same thing here but decided not too.

 

[PhantomCruiser]

More eyes on them here perhaps? I can understand why they are working with such tight parameters though. And can't blame them for an abort.
It seems to me though that there are plenty of people who are looking for them (or wanting them) to fail. Not so much here, but there sure is a lot of bad-mouthing SpaceX out on the various bulletin boards.
I would think that people would want a commercial space enterprise to be successful? I don't know, maybe it's just me...

 

[Andy44]

Not just more eyes, but more money invested. Much more at stake, especially since Obama's recent announcements about the future of the space program. The future is SpaceX's oyster, if they don't break their teeth cracking it open.

And there has been plenty of bad-mouthing of SpaceX on these boards as well.