Falcon 9 Launch & Recovery Operations Options

[Greg Hullender]

SpaceX just sent a press release with an update on the Falcon 9. They successfully did a 5-engine test. They also mentioned the next Falcon 1 attempt will be late June "or July," presumably meaning "late June or early July," but you never know. :-)

Here's the full text. This isn't on their web page yet, the last I looked:

McGregor TX – Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (SpaceX) conducted the first five-engine firing of its Falcon 9 medium to heavy lift rocket at its Texas Test Facility outside McGregor on Thursday, May 29. At full power the engines generated almost half a million pounds of force, and consumed 1,750 lbs of fuel and liquid oxygen per second. This five engine test again sets the record as the most powerful test yet on the towering 235-foot tall test stand.
The test of the five Merlin 1C engines, arranged in a cross pattern like the Saturn V moon rocket, is the last step before firing the full complement of nine engines, scheduled for this summer. With all engines operating, the Falcon 9 generates over one million pounds of thrust in vacuum - four times the maximum thrust of a 747 aircraft.
“This is the first time that we’ve added more than one engine at a time, and all phases of integration and testing went smoothly,” said Tom Mueller, Vice President of Propulsion for SpaceX. “As with previous tests, we saw no unexpected interactions between the engines, and are on schedule for adding four more engines.”
The first Falcon 9 will arrive at the SpaceX launch site at Cape Canaveral by the end of 2008. The next flight of SpaceX’s smaller Falcon 1 rocket is scheduled for late June or July of 2008.

[Greg Hullender]

Here's some info taken from Spaceflight now. Executive Summary: They detected an anomoly in the Spin Start system and decided to take the rest of the day to study that, rather than immediately try again. The rocket never fired at all.

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."

Since they got all the way to spin-start, one must assume the wash cycle ran without problems. :-)

--Greg

[ugordan]

They detected an anomoly

Honest question: is anomoly a valid alternative spelling of anomaly? I've seen it spelled that way countless times, yet it doesn't appear to show up in (online) dictionaries.

[Greg Hullender]

Honest question: is anomoly a valid alternative spelling of anomaly? I've seen it spelled that way countless times, yet it doesn't appear to show up in (online) dictionaries.

Just a typo -- mine, not SpaceX's or Spaceflight Now's. Even native speakers sometimes have trouble with the spelling associated with reduced vowels. It varies all over the map from one word to another, even though the sound is just "uh". In this case, though, "anomoly" actually looks wrong to me -- no clue why I typed it. Getting old perhaps. :-)

--Greg

[ugordan]

Got it, thanks. I thought maybe it's one of those things like sulfur/sulphur, etc.