The Falcon 9 static fire is scheduled for 1 p.m. EST today

Pat Flannery writes:

On 3/9/2010 2:52 PM, Jochem Huhmann wrote:
Well, the thing did not explode... it could have been 9 Merlin engines
finely strewn all over the landscape after all.

I'm half expecting that to happen; you have nine engines, each with a
spinning turbopump, and I picture the harmonic vibrations getting in
synch and then...KA-BOOM!

They did full static tests with all engines (over the full duration of a
first stage burn) last year (and caused a major public disturbance with
that since the people living around the test area didn't knew what the
hell was happening with the horizon on fire). I don't expect this to be
anything else than one of the small problems you have to accept when
you're doing what they do.


Jochem

--
"A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no
longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery

On 3/9/2010 1:42 PM, Damon Hill wrote:
Now there is disscussion of a loud "bang" noise on ignition, black
smoke, and a fire.
Maybe one of the engines didn't ignite properly?

Not finding anything, even playable video; appears the ignition was
aborted and the test scrubbed for the day. We'll have to wait for
the details, and probably not from SpaceX.

Nuts.


Here's a photo of it doing whatever it did:
http://spaceflightnow.com/news/image...ire_400285.jpg

Pat

On 3/9/2010 2:52 PM, Jochem Huhmann wrote:
Well, the thing did not explode... it could have been 9 Merlin engines
finely strewn all over the landscape after all.

I'm half expecting that to happen; you have nine engines, each with a
spinning turbopump, and I picture the harmonic vibrations getting in
synch and then...KA-BOOM!

Pat

Pat Flannery wrote in
dakotatelephone:

On 3/9/2010 11:05 AM, Rick Jones wrote:


And my browser keeps locking-up !-( If it does ignite I'll have to
watch the reply on youtube I guess.

The engines shut down just as they were igniting; no further test today.

And here's the report, with photos. First close-up pictures of the
base of the Falcon 9 on the pad with hold-down arms/umbilicals that
I've seen. (The metal framework that enclosed the engines isn't in
evidence; I thought it was part of an interface that plugged into the
pad.) I like the fairing that wraps around the base and engines; has
a resemblence to the Saturn V minus the fins.

http://www.spaceflightnow/falcon9/001/100309hotfire/

--Damon

Pat Flannery wrote in news:i_idnULgFf33qgrWnZ2dnUVZ_g-
hdakotatelephone:

On 3/9/2010 8:31 PM, Damon Hill wrote:y.

And here's the report, with photos. First close-up pictures of the
base of the Falcon 9 on the pad with hold-down arms/umbilicals that
I've seen. (The metal framework that enclosed the engines isn't in
evidence; I thought it was part of an interface that plugged into the
pad.) I like the fairing that wraps around the base and engines; has
a resemblence to the Saturn V minus the fins.

http://www.spaceflightnow/falcon9/001/100309hotfire/

Looks a bit like the base of an Ariane IV also.

The second image shows multiple green flames from the injection
of TEA/TEB; they went right down to the onion skin with this one.

--Damon

Pat Flannery wrote in
dakotatelephone:

On 3/9/2010 10:41 PM, Damon Hill wrote:

The second image shows multiple green flames from the injection
of TEA/TEB; they went right down to the onion skin with this one.


It sounds like something went out of spec during turbopump spin-up.
With nine engines, they will have to get everything very reliable in
regards to this so as not to have one engine get a bit out of synch with
the others and shut all nine down.
That was one of the challenges they faced when designing the Saturn I.

Wonder how much of an issue this was with the static firings in Texas?
Timings might not have been so critical with those since they wouldn't
be flying then, just need to get 'em all cranked up and burning.

--Damon

On 3/9/2010 8:31 PM, Damon Hill wrote:y.

And here's the report, with photos. First close-up pictures of the
base of the Falcon 9 on the pad with hold-down arms/umbilicals that
I've seen. (The metal framework that enclosed the engines isn't in
evidence; I thought it was part of an interface that plugged into the
pad.) I like the fairing that wraps around the base and engines; has
a resemblence to the Saturn V minus the fins.

http://www.spaceflightnow/falcon9/001/100309hotfire/

Looks a bit like the base of an Ariane IV also.

Pat

On 3/9/2010 10:41 PM, Damon Hill wrote:

The second image shows multiple green flames from the injection
of TEA/TEB; they went right down to the onion skin with this one.


It sounds like something went out of spec during turbopump spin-up.
With nine engines, they will have to get everything very reliable in
regards to this so as not to have one engine get a bit out of synch with
the others and shut all nine down.
That was one of the challenges they faced when designing the Saturn I.

Pat

Damon Hill wrote:
Wonder how much of an issue this was with the static firings in
Texas? Timings might not have been so critical with those since
they wouldn't be flying then, just need to get 'em all cranked up
and burning.

I would expect them to strive for as near to 100% fidelity with actual
launch conditions there.

I loved this quote:

"We encountered a problem with the spin start system and aborted
nominally," the statement said.

I'd say their spin machinery is working just fine

rick jones
--
web2.0 n, the dot.com reunion tour...
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...

Rick Jones wrote in
:

I loved this quote:

"We encountered a problem with the spin start system and aborted
nominally," the statement said.

I'd say their spin machinery is working just fine


GROAN. (You're making my head spin...)

--Damon "The pun, the pun..." --Dr. Smith, Lost in Space