FT-13 scrubbed on the pad at engine start ... and rescheduled already.
This screen grab from SpaceX's page for the mission was at 7:40 PM EDT, so less than one full hour after the abort.
Judging by SpaceX having looked closely enough to decide they can go tomorrow in that little time, I think that means they considered it didn't look like something that required a lot of unexpected work. There was speculation on the NASA Spaceflight video coverage that it might require replacement of as many as four Raptor3 engines. How they came up with that number isn't something I can answer.
SpaceX's page is the only one I could find with this information.
EDIT 7/16 @ 10:30 PM EDT, 0230 UTC: A re-check of SpaceX's page for the mission shows the date and time I circled in red are gone, and now it just says "TBD" So cancel this and we'll keep our eyes open.
This is another terribly critical flight, it HAS to be a significant success. SpaceX is a traded company now (disclosure: I own a few shares) and I fear will take a hard hit if things go wrong. There's a lot of risk (Starship/Superheavy still aren't fully proven) but I have faith in the company an the flight tomorrow.
ReplyDeleteI rechecked the website I screen captured and find that now it says "TBD" with no reference to tomorrow at all.
DeleteStarship brings one of my favorite observations to life all the time. "When you do things no one has ever done, you see thing no one has ever seen." Until Starship, the only rocket more powerful than the Saturn V ever built was the Soviet N1 and that never flew successfully. Four tests, all went kablooey. SpaceX is in unexplored territory, but they've got a really good record of figuring stuff out and fixing it.
I wonder if they scrubbed in order to not pull attention away from President Trump's speech today?
ReplyDeleteMy gut reaction is "doubtful."
DeleteI tried to phrase it in a sarcastic way but failed. But as a conspiracy theory it's no lamer than 'faked moon landing...'
DeleteIt's hard to fake that level of dumb. They've got such a massive head start on you.
DeleteI get occasional odd comments here, usually anonymous, that seem to imply we've never even been to orbit, let alone to the moon. So sorry - not gonna play.
If you watch(ed) SpaceX's coverage of the launch, the telemetry shows 4 engines not igniting. Those were E5, E6, E12, and E13 in the ring of 10 steerable engines. Elon stated on X that 2 engines would need to be replaced. I would presume that another static fire or two will be done before going for launch.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I heard that watching NASA Spaceflight on YouTube (so I can watch on my 50" TV in the other room). In addition to your point about probably another static firing, I wonder about these four, since they were static fired last week. Does this imply there's some reliability issues with the Raptors? Yeah, you want rapidly reusable, it's just that doesn't do anything for you if your ride back to Earth won't get off Mars. Put back a couple of parts if it makes that say, rapidly, reliably, reusable.
DeleteI think the whole point of the current tests is to iron out any wrinkles in the systems. I remember when Tory Bruno saw the picture of a Raptor 3 and said that it was not a complete rocket engine because there was not enough parts on it. Getting the less complex engine to be reliable is a major goal.
DeleteHow does the new Raptor V3 acoustic igniter actually work, anyway?
ReplyDeleteI haven't seen anything published about that.
Delete