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.

4 of 165 comments (clear)

  1. Re: Good by rkordmaa · · Score: 4, Insightful

    LES would have gotten away from AMOS-6 type scenario, that's pretty well determined. Sitting on the ground is when it's easiest for LES to get away from the exploding rocket, if LES can't get away from a fueling explosion one would have to ask, what's the point of LES to begin with? Because it sure as hell wouldn't get away from the rocket under acceleration.

  2. Re:There are several problems here by religionofpeas · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Second, potentially, it could be made safe, but only by raising costs

    Money is not the issue. Late fuel loading increases rocket performance.

    The refrigeration doesn't have to be internal

    What are you talking about ? There's no refrigeration.

    Fourth, we know from the launch of the car that the guidance systems and engine control are flaky.

    How is the guidance system software relevant for the fuel loading procedure ? The explosion happened because the designers didn't completely anticipate all the physical interactions between the oxygen and the carbon wrapped pressure vessel. Once you do understand these systems, the software is the easy part.

  3. Re:There are several problems here by MachineShedFred · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And don't forget that if you are pre-fueling before crew ingress, you've got all kinds of ground crew crawling around on the tower and such, that's far more people next to a big hazardous device. If you fuel when the astronauts are in the capsule belted in and buttoned up, and everyone else has a chance to GTFO before the fuel pumps turn on, the maximum risk to life would be the flight crew and they have far better chances due to the launch escape system.

    Obviously no one wants anyone to die, but in the proposed scenario the only people around would be the astronauts, one with their hand on an abort handle capable of getting them out of there with extreme rapidity with a twist of the wrist. That seems like a better scenario to me.

    --
    Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  4. Re:There are several problems here by bruce_the_loon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    Nothing to do with guidance or engine control. They just let the second stage engine burn to fuel exhaustion and it burned longer than expected. Except for the aborted ride-along satellite with the one ISS servicing mission because of the single engine failure in the first stage, all their launches have been precisely where the client wanted them. Including the spy sats.

    --
    Trying to become famous by taking photos. Visit my homepage please.