Slashdot Mirror
NASA Supports SpaceX Plan To Fuel Rockets With Astronauts On Board (engadget.com)
For years, NASA has been debating whether to allow SpaceX to fuel its spacecraft with super-cold propellant after astronauts have boarded. While the company typically fuels its rockets shortly before launch in order to prevent the coolant from warming up too much, the practice has been deemed "a potential safety risk" by NASA safety advisers due to the high risk of an explosion. Now, according to Engadget, NASA has "decided that it will move forward with the SpaceX plan to fuel rockets after astronauts have already boarded." From the report:
"To make this decision, our teams conducted an extensive review of the SpaceX ground operations, launch vehicle design, escape systems and operational history," Kathy Lueders, manager of NASA's Commercial Crew Program, said in a statement. "Safety for our personnel was the driver for this analysis, and the team's assessment was that this plan presents the least risk." SpaceX will have to prove its system is safe, however. The company will have to demonstrate the fueling procedure five times prior to its first crewed flight and afterwards, NASA will assess any remaining risk before certifying SpaceX's system. In September 2016, a Falcon 9 rocket exploded on the launchpad while it was being loaded with propellant. No injuries were reported, but it didn't look good to NASA which was already reviewing the fueling procedure.
Challenger proved that cost savings are important, it is time the "private" industry learn the lesson too.
Though that one was unfueled.
according to Engadget, NASA has "decided that it will move forward with the SpaceX plan to fuel rockets after astronauts have already boarded.
And maybe NASA will learn a thing or two about how to conduct a space-launch operation, as well.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
Off you go then.
Feynman had some choice things to say about NASA's grasp of "potential safety risks". I hear they haven't materially improved since.
They're going to fuel the rockets with the on-board astronauts? Soylent green is rocket fuel, too!
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
First, it's Russian Roulette, due to the lack of safety culture. (Note: I've worked at NASA.) This means that accidents might not happen the first time, or the twenty first. Each spin that ends up OK will convince others that it's safe, when it's really just lucky. Five successes is like rolling dice five times and not getting a one. It's going to happen. I would want something a little more technical, such as detailed analysis of failure modes, extensive sensory data showing precisely what is happening physically and electrically, and an ultrasound scan of metal items before and after the series of runs to determine how they're handling the stress.
Second, potentially, it could be made safe, but only by raising costs. SpaceX is cheap because it cuts corners. Some of those corners weren't needed. Some were. We aren't going to get told enough information to determine which is which, and failure rates with such small numbers are statistically meaningless.
Third, I don't see the added value. The refrigeration doesn't have to be internal (so you don't need the extra weight on board and can avoid ice buildup).
Fourth, we know from the launch of the car that the guidance systems and engine control are flaky. They failed to put the car on the intended orbit by a few million miles. Buggy software in a rocket is never good, but said buggy software controls the refuelling systems and we've seen where that goes. All over the landscape. Now, SpaceX and NASA want to do this with people on board.
One or two accidents could put back space research 20+ years. Such an accident at NASA nearly resulted in Hubble plunging to Earth as an uncontrolled missile, due to a delayed repair mission. We can't afford to be trapped on this badly degraded mudball any longer than necessary. We need successes, even if that ups the cost by a dollar or two. I care more about success for these missions than I care about SpaceX shareholders. The shareholders will live. The astronauts might very well not.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
If it blows up they can just blame ULA saboteurs again.
As they were testing valves and other gas handling, the Apollo 1 spacecraft was being tested with a pure atmosphere environment at 0.3 bar above the ambient, or 1.3 bar absolute. There were many things they were doing wrong with Apollo 1.
Prediction for end of Universe #42: Fencepost error in Quantum_bogosort.cpp
Reasonable
SpaceX also plans to fuel its ship in parking orbit in the future, topping off many times, with presumably crew and payload aboard. What does NASA think about that? The fuel will not be supercold I think, but explosions in orbit could anyway cause a debris cascade making space travel unsafe for years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
This sounds a bit inhumane. At the very least, they could use puppies or kittens.
The fueling operation is dangerous. Moving cryofluids introduces a lot of failure modes that don't exist sitting still.
This is another example of SpaceX using political solutions to engineering challenges. Just ask our puppets on the hill to tell NASA to play ball. It worked to get the Air Force to pencil whip their space rating.
Why? Astronauts don't have a really good energy density and make poor rocket fuel.
Personally I'd rather walk up to and board a nice inert skyscraper of aluminum and then have it filled to the brim with highly flammable rocket fuel and a powerful oxidizer, knowing that the escape system was armed and ready to fire the moment it detected over-pressure waves/fire. The alternative of spending an hour or more driving up to, riding an elevator along, and then being strapped into a hissing, creaking, capable of exploding at any minute skyscraper of rocket fuel/oxidizer would seem to be, on its face, far more problematic from a safety perspective.
So, carrying astronauts on board to be come rocket fuel is being postulated?
It's not the Republicans that are denialists. It's the democrats. Twats haven't won an election in 10 years, and it's the Republicans that are living with denial? Please.
The image it invoked in my head of astronauts either being used as rocket fuel, or some kind of poop based fuel, or something.
I know the actual explanation was more realistic, but the former was more fun.
This signature has Super Cow Powers
Dems haven't won an election in Ten years? Not even in 11/2008? Not again in 2012? We have election beyond the Presidential too.
Nice troll fail. It helps to know hoe often the country you are trolling has elections. No rubles for you!
Gives a whole new meaning to "biofuel".
Not necessarily a troll. Poor AC may just be in denial.
This is just space shuttle thinking applied once again. You ok a thing because you want to do a thing. That's all. Wait for the disasters.
E Proelio Veritas.