SpaceX F9 - GPS 3 SV04 - SLC-40

[Cosmacelf]

It was gunk in a few engines:
They were able to replicate the failure on McGregor. A relief valve on the gas generator was slightly blocked by some substance and made it start earlier than expected. The substance is one used during production and was not properly retired. Once retired the engine worked perfectly normal and was ready to go. They, out of extra precaution, replaced two engines on Crew 1.

That's the second time at least that improper cleaning has resulted in problems at SpaceX. The other one I'm thinking of caused an explosion.

 

[Cosmacelf]

Too funny: “After this, SpaceX inspected other engines across its fleet (the company inspected new boosters only, as Falcon 9 first stages that have already flown are not subject to this issue).”

And people derided the “flight proven” moniker!

From (and this article gives more details. It was an outside vendor that caused this):

How a tiny bit of lacquer grounded new Falcon 9 rockets for a month

 

[e-FTW]

What @Grendal said.

So does anyone want to fly on new boosters now?

 

[Grendal]

What @Grendal said.

So does anyone want to fly on new boosters now?

It's become rare enough that the question is: who is left that insists on a new booster? I can't think of any. I'm sure there are long term contracts that were signed years ago that will crop up and insist on a new booster. Any newer contracts probably want a second or third launched booster to save a few bucks. Give it a couple more years and SpaceX will mostly make the decision themselves.

 

[adiggs]

It's become rare enough that the question is: who is left that insists on a new booster? I can't think of any. I'm sure there are long term contracts that were signed years ago that will crop up and insist on a new booster. Any newer contracts probably want a second or third launched booster to save a few bucks. Give it a couple more years and SpaceX will mostly make the decision themselves.

Or even better - SpaceX will start needing to discount first launch boosters due to their flight unproven nature. And THEN find that they need to use them to loft an internal payload (such as a Starlink launch) because they can't find buyers for those first launches.

Won't that be a hoot!

 

[Grendal]

Static fire successful:
SpaceX test-fires Falcon 9 rocket before GPS launch – Spaceflight Now

 

[Grendal]

 

[Grendal]

Official Webcast:

 

[Grendal]

Making it look easy. Success.

 

[Cosmacelf]

Perfect landing too.

 

[Cosmacelf]

Meanwhile the ULA rocket next door with an NRO mission is still grounded...

 

[Grendal]

Meanwhile the ULA rocket next door with an NRO mission is still grounded...

That's what happens when you take away the $1 billion a year bonus. The infrastructure supporting the launches gets weak.

 

[Cosmacelf]

That's what happens when you take away the $1 billion a year bonus. The infrastructure supporting the launches gets weak.

Or they could cut back on lavish corporate jets and company "conferences" in Hawaii ... nah, what am I thinking!

 

[HVM]

You miss the point, $800 million just too little, they clearly need more. No one can't just move hydraulic cylinders twice per month by that low, and check the filters. 1B is must.

Also fairing:
https://twitter.com/TrevorMahlmann/status/1325127968864264192

 

[Grendal]

A little toasty too. Evidence that shows you worked to make it happen.

 

[HVM]

Ok Delta had (have) a hydraulic problem and Atlas had the LOX-valve...