Connect with us

SpaceX

SpaceX to static fire Falcon 9 with a spacecraft on board for the first time in two years

The integrated DM-1 Crew Dragon 'stack' rolled out to Pad 39A for the first time in the first few days of 2019. (SpaceX)

Published

on

SpaceX has rolled Falcon 9 and Crew Dragon out to Pad 39A for the second time ever in preparation for a full wet dress rehearsal (WDR) and static fire – no earlier than Jan. 23 – of booster B1051’s nine Merlin 1D engines, preparing for an orbital launch attempt that slipped from NET Feb. 9 to Feb. 16 earlier this week.

While this milestone is important for myriad other reasons, it happens to be exceptionally unique thanks to one particularly surprising feature: Falcon 9 rolled out for its static fire with Crew Dragon (the rocket’s payload) still attached. This will be the first time in more than 28 months – since Amos-6, the last catastrophic Falcon 9 failure – that SpaceX has performed its routine on-pad static fire with a valuable payload attached to the rocket.

Advertisement

On September 1st, 2016, a SpaceX Falcon 9 experienced the rocket family’s second catastrophic failure ever when supercool liquid oxygen froze around a COPV’s carbon fiber wrappings, expanding just enough to breach the ultra-high-pressure vessel. Falcon 9 and its ~$200M Amos-6 satellite payload were completely destroyed, while Launch Complex 40 (LC-40) suffered tens of millions of dollars of damage that would effectively require it to be completely rebuilt over the course of more than a year.

After Amos-6, SpaceX immediately halted the practice of including customer payloads on Falcon 9 during static fires, used to save 24-48 hours of time between static fire and launch. SpaceX nevertheless retained the option if customers were to explicitly request it, otherwise wisely concluding (likely with more than a little encouragement from insurance companies) that expediting schedules by a few dozen hours was not worth the entirely unnecessary risk to satellite payloads that often cost hundreds of millions of dollars and take years to build.

https://twitter.com/spiel2001/status/1087828282937102338

Given that SpaceX has stuck to that practice for all 38 Falcon 9 launches it has performed between Amos-6 and the present day, it seems all but guaranteed that the first orbit-ready Crew Dragon’s presence on Falcon 9 during its static fire has been done only at the specific request of the launch customer – in this case, NASA. It’s probably not hyperbolic to argue that Demo-1’s (DM-1) Crew Dragon is the most valuable, important, expensive, and irreplaceable spacecraft SpaceX has ever attempted to launch, having likely spent millions of work hours building, changing, refining, and testing it to meet NASA’s exacting and sometimes absurd requirements.

Advertisement

If Falcon 9 B1051 were to fail with Crew Dragon atop it during its Pad 39A static fire, it might be possible for the DM-2’s Crew Dragon to be completed and modified for an uncrewed test flight with just six months of delay, assuming Falcon 9’s mode of failure could be investigated and repaired to NASA’s satisfaction. However, the destruction of the DM-1 capsule and trunk could almost indefinitely delay SpaceX’s first crewed launch, dependent upon an inflight-abort test that is supposed to use the refurbished DM-1 capsule, while the Crew Dragon currently supposed to launch after DM-2 is unlikely to be ready before August or September 2019.

 

Ultimately, NASA likely requested that Crew Dragon remain atop Falcon 9 for this static fire out of some desire for a full-fidelity test environment and complement of data. There is perhaps a very limited chance that Crew Dragon will be fully fueled with hydrazine (MMH/NTO) and have its launch escape system (LES) active and ready to go in the event of a rocket failure.

Why they deemed the immense potential risk to be worthwhile is far less clear. Whether it is being done out of complacency or a desire for expediency or ultra-realistic test data, the risk is the same. In theory, Falcon 9 has been tested extensively and should operate perfectly, just as expected. So was Amos-6’s Falcon 9.

Advertisement

Check out Teslarati’s newsletters for prompt updates, on-the-ground perspectives, and unique glimpses of SpaceX’s rocket launch and recovery processes!

Eric Ralph is Teslarati's senior spaceflight reporter and has been covering the industry in some capacity for almost half a decade, largely spurred in 2016 by a trip to Mexico to watch Elon Musk reveal SpaceX's plans for Mars in person. Aside from spreading interest and excitement about spaceflight far and wide, his primary goal is to cover humanity's ongoing efforts to expand beyond Earth to the Moon, Mars, and elsewhere.

Advertisement
Comments

Elon Musk

Musk company boycott proposal at City Council meeting gets weird and ironic

The City of Davis in California held a weekly city council meeting on Tuesday, where it voted on a proposal to ban Musk-operated companies. It got weird and ironic.

Published

on

Credit: Grok

A city council meeting in California that proposed banning the entry of new contracts with companies controlled by Elon Musk got weird and ironic on Tuesday night after councilmembers were forced to admit some of the entities would benefit the community.

The City of Davis in California held a weekly city council meeting on Tuesday, where it voted on a proposal called “Resolution Ending Engagement With Elon Musk-Controlled Companies and To Encourage CalPERS To Divest Stock In These Companies.”

The proposal claimed that Musk ” has used his influence and corporate platforms to promote political ideologies and activities that threaten democratic norms and institutions, including campaign finance activities that raise ethical and legal concerns.”

We reported on it on Tuesday before the meeting:

Advertisement

California city weighs banning Elon Musk companies like Tesla and SpaceX

However, the meeting is now published online, and it truly got strange.

While it was supported by various members of the community, you could truly tell who was completely misinformed about the influence of Musk’s companies, their current status from an economic and competitive standpoint, and how much some of Musk’s companies’ projects benefit the community.

City Council Member Admits Starlink is Helpful

One City Council member was forced to admit that Starlink, the satellite internet project established by Musk’s SpaceX, was beneficial to the community because the emergency response system utilized it for EMS, Fire, and Police communications in the event of a power outage.

Advertisement

After public comments were heard, councilmembers amended some of the language in the proposal to not include Starlink because of its benefits to public safety.

One community member even said, “There should be exceptions to the rule.”

Advertisement

Community Members Report Out of Touch Mainstream Media Narratives

Many community members very obviously read big bold headlines about how horribly Tesla is performing in terms of electric vehicles. Many pointed to “labor intimidation” tactics being used at the company’s Fremont Factory, racial discrimination lawsuits, and Musk’s political involvement as clear-cut reasons why Davis should not consider his companies for future contracts.

However, it was interesting to hear some of them speak, very obviously out of touch with reality.

Musk has encouraged unions to propose organizing at the Fremont Factory, stating that many employees would not be on board because they are already treated very well. In 2022, he invited Union leaders to come to Fremont “at their convenience.”

The UAW never took the opportunity.

Advertisement

Some have argued that Tesla prevented pro-union clothing at Fremont, which it did for safety reasons. An appeals court sided with Tesla, stating that the company had a right to enforce work uniforms to ensure employee safety.

Another community member said that Tesla was losing market share in the U.S. due to growing competition from legacy automakers.

“Plus, these existing auto companies have learned a lot from what Tesla has done,” she said. Interestingly, Ford, General Motors, and Stellantis have all pulled back from their EV ambitions significantly. All three took billions in financial hits.

One Resident Crosses a Line

One resident’s time at the podium included this:

Advertisement

He was admonished by City Council member Bapu Vaitla, who said his actions were offensive. The two sparred verbally for a few seconds before their argument ended.

City Council Vote Result

Ultimately, the City of Davis chose to pass the motion, but they also amended it to exclude Starlink because of its emergency system benefits.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Elon Musk

California city weighs banning Elon Musk companies like Tesla and SpaceX

A resolution draft titled, “Resolution Ending Engagement With Elon Musk-Controlled Companies and To Encourage CalPERS To Divest Stock In These Companies,” alleges that Musk “has engaged in business practices that are alleged to include violations of labor laws, environmental regulations, workplace safety standards, and regulatory noncompliance.”

Published

on

tesla supercharger
Credit: Tesla

A California City Council is planning to weigh whether it would adopt a resolution that would place a ban on its engagement with Elon Musk companies, like Tesla and SpaceX.

The City of Davis, California, will have its City Council weigh a new proposal that would adopt a resolution “to divest from companies owned and/or controlled by Elon Musk.”

This would include a divestment proposal to encourage CalPERS, the California Public Employees Retirement System, to divest from stock in any Musk company.

A resolution draft titled, “Resolution Ending Engagement With Elon Musk-Controlled Companies and To Encourage CalPERS To Divest Stock In These Companies,” alleges that Musk “has engaged in business practices that are alleged to include violations of labor laws, environmental regulations, workplace safety standards, and regulatory noncompliance.”

Advertisement

It claims that Musk “has used his influence and corporate platforms to promote political ideologies and activities that threaten democratic norms and institutions, including campaign finance activities that raise ethical and legal concerns.”

If adopted, Davis would bar the city from entering into any new contracts or purchasing agreements with any company owned or controlled by Elon Musk. It also says it will not consider utilizing Tesla Robotaxis.

Hotel owner tears down Tesla chargers in frustration over Musk’s politics

A staff report on the proposal claims there is “no immediate budgetary impact.” However, a move like this would only impact its residents, especially with Tesla, as the Supercharger Network is open to all electric vehicle manufacturers. It is also extremely reliable and widespread.

Advertisement

Regarding the divestment request to CalPERS, it would not be surprising to see the firm make the move. Although it voted against Musk’s compensation package last year, the firm has no issue continuing to make money off of Tesla’s performance on Wall Street.

The decision to avoid Musk companies will be considered this evening at the City Council meeting.

The report comes from Davis Vanguard.

It is no secret that Musk’s political involvement, especially during the most recent Presidential Election, ruffled some feathers. Other cities considered similar options, like the City of Baltimore, which “decided to go in another direction” after awarding Tesla a $5 million contract for a fleet of EVs for city employees.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Elon Musk

Starlink restrictions are hitting Russian battlefield comms: report

The restrictions have reportedly disrupted Moscow’s drone coordination and frontline communications.

Published

on

A truckload of Starlink dishes has arrived in Ukraine. (Credit: Mykhailo Fedorov/Twitter)

SpaceX’s decision to disable unauthorized Starlink terminals in Ukraine is now being felt on the battlefield, with Ukrainian commanders reporting that Russian troops have struggled to maintain assault operations without access to the satellite network. 

The restrictions have reportedly disrupted Moscow’s drone coordination and frontline communications.

Lt. Denis Yaroslavsky, who commands a special reconnaissance unit, stated that Russian assault activity noticeably declined for several days after the shutdown. “For three to four days after the shutdown, they really reduced the assault operations,” Yaroslavsky said.

Russian units had allegedly obtained Starlink terminals through black market channels and mounted them on drones and weapons systems, despite service terms prohibiting offensive military use. Once those terminals were blocked, commanders on the Ukrainian side reported improved battlefield ratios, as noted in a New York Post report.

Advertisement

A Ukrainian unit commander stated that casualty imbalances widened after the cutoff. “On any given day, depending on your scale of analysis, my sector was already achieving 20:1 (casuality rate) before the shutdown, and we are an elite unit. Regular units have no problem going 5:1 or 8:1. With Starlink down, 13:1 (casualty rate) for a regular unit is easy,” the unit commander said.

The restrictions come as Russia faces heavy challenges across multiple fronts. A late January report from the Center for Strategic and International Studies estimated that more than 1.2 million Russian troops have been killed, wounded, or gone missing since February 2022.

The Washington-based Institute for the Study of War also noted that activity from Russia’s Rubikon drone unit declined after Feb. 1, suggesting communications constraints from Starlink’s restrictions may be limiting operations. “I’m sure the Russians have (alternative options), but it takes time to maximize their implementation and this (would take) at least four to six months,” Yaroslavsky noted. 

Continue Reading