Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by CoolHand on Wednesday November 02 2016, @07:57PM   Printer-friendly
from the laughing-in-the-face-of-danger dept.

Experts advising NASA are not impressed with SpaceX's plan to fuel rockets while astronauts are aboard, particularly in the wake of the September 1st explosion:

"This is a hazardous operation," Space Station Advisory Committee Chairman Thomas Stafford, a former NASA astronaut and retired Air Force general, said during a conference call on Monday. Stafford said the group's concerns were heightened after an explosion of an unmanned SpaceX rocket while it was being fueled on Sept. 1. Causes of that explosion remain under investigation.

Members of the eight-member group, including veterans of NASA's Gemini, Apollo and space shuttle programs, noted that all previous rockets carrying people into space were fueled before astronauts got to the launch pad. "Everybody there, and particularly the people who had experience over the years, said nobody is ever near the pad when they fuel a booster," Stafford said, referring to an earlier briefing the group had about SpaceX's proposed fueling procedure.

SpaceX needs NASA approval of its launch system before it can put astronauts into space. NASA said on Tuesday it was "continuing its evaluation of the SpaceX concept for fueling the Falcon 9 for commercial crew launches. The results of the company's Sept. 1 mishap investigation will be incorporated into NASA's evaluation."

SpaceX posted updates about the explosion on Oct. 28. The helium loading system appears to have caused the problem. SpaceX wants to resume launches before the end of the year.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 02 2016, @09:37PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 02 2016, @09:37PM (#421841)

    Fuel transfer is always handled in this manner because it is a dynamic process. Gas stations are the exception, not the rule. Fuel transfers are done away from everything else, and away from everyone else, because that is when things are the most vulnerable to spills and ignition due to ESD or whatever.

    You really think SpaceX has more experience handling LOX than NASA? Or do you mean they have more experience with this specific fueling procedure, which in N times (with N a small number) they've had a failure. I'm surprised that you're surprised that there is a safety concern.

    Your "serious and unsafe" pressure on the launch is a red herring. They need to be able to handle launch delays of many hours. If you're saying their system can't do that without serious and unsafe conditions, then they need quit wasting everyone's time and scrap this procedure right now.

  • (Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday November 02 2016, @09:46PM

    by frojack (1554) on Wednesday November 02 2016, @09:46PM (#421848) Journal

    Fuel transfer is always handled in this manner because it is a dynamic process. Gas stations are the exception, not the rule. Fuel transfers are done away from everything else, and away from everyone else, because that is when things are the most vulnerable to spills and ignition due to ESD or whatever.

    Gas Stations,
    Air Ports,
    Boat Docks,
    Ferry Docks,

    In fact just about all non pressurized fuels are loaded into occupied vehicles routinely.

       

    --
    No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
    • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday November 02 2016, @10:03PM

      by bob_super (1357) on Wednesday November 02 2016, @10:03PM (#421855)

      And lots and lots of pressurized ones too (tankers, trucks, LPG, pipelines...).

      I'm more receptive to his "launch delay" argument. If you can't fuel an hour before you put the guys in, how long can you stand on the pad for a minor hold to clear?

  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday November 02 2016, @11:08PM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 02 2016, @11:08PM (#421878) Journal

    Your "serious and unsafe" pressure on the launch is a red herring. They need to be able to handle launch delays of many hours. If you're saying their system can't do that without serious and unsafe conditions, then they need quit wasting everyone's time and scrap this procedure right now.

    The propellant mix is a significant advantage. I wouldn't recommend abandoning it for notions of safety that aren't actually safe. Here, SpaceX would handle such delays by continuing to pump propellant into the vehicle or by unloading the propellant and trying again later. And serious and unsafe pressure is a big factor in both the Challenger and Columbia accidents (choosing to go forward with the Challenger launch despite the concerns about the O rings and deciding to not image the damage of the ice strike prior to the reentry attempt by Columbia). So I wouldn't consider it a red herring.

    You really think SpaceX has more experience handling LOX than NASA? Or do you mean they have more experience with this specific fueling procedure, which in N times (with N a small number) they've had a failure. I'm surprised that you're surprised that there is a safety concern.

    This specific fueling procedure. And it won't be long before they have more experience of any sort with handling LOX.