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.
Sorry but to be fair, some "private" industry engineers had warned of what might happen prior to the launch but NASA pressured them to give the go ahead anyway, even excluding those "private" industry engineers from the talks regarding the go/no-go decision..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
Is it safer to do a whole lot of manipulation (as required with the boarding procedure, climbing the launch tower, sealing the hatch etc) around a rocket that is already filled with potentially explosive material, and might blow up at any point consuming in a ball of fire anything within the area that can't get away fast enough?
Or would it be safer to enter the capsule while the rocket is just an inert tube, buckle up, and wait till the rocket is filled up, sitting comfortably in a hermetic capsule equipped with a launch escape system - capable of getting away from the explosion fast enough to be safe?
Paradoxically, before the launch, the crew compartment is the safest of all places near the rocket.
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
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
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.
Fixed link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyFF4cpMVag
> 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).
SpaceX uses densified propellant. Meaning, it's loaded at a temperature significantly below boiling point, which means simply replentishing what boils off doesn't work, as at that point it's already too warm to be useful.
That's why SpaceX needs to abort if the rocket spends too long sitting on the pad. The only solution if the propellant warms up too much is to drain all the fuel, and refuel the rocket again.
That's unless you're suggesting they should make some sort of giant cooler that wraps around the entire rocket.
> Fourth, we know from the launch of the car that the guidance systems and engine control are flaky.
If I recall correctly, given that this was a test, they simply pushed the rocket as far as it would go, and weren't aiming for an exact orbit.