SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
SpaceX is no stranger to delays. The private space firm headed by Elon Musk has pushed back is launch schedule several times in the last few years after rockets have been lost. Now, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) says there may be an issue with the Falcon 9 rocket that delays the expected launch of the first manned mission in 2018.
The report from the GAO (just a preliminary release for now) cites issues with the turboblades used in Falcon 9 rockets. These are the components that move fuel from the tanks to engines. The blades apparently have a tendency to develop cracks, which could cause catastrophic failure if they develop or worsen during a launch.
According to NASA acting administrator Robert Lightfoot (who also has an amazing name) says the agency and SpaceX have been aware of the issue for months (or possibly years). NASA expressed concern to SpaceX that the turboblade cracks presented too great a risk to launch manned missions. Cracks have been found in the turboblades as recently as September 2016.
SpaceX says it has been conducting extensive testing on the Falcon 9 rocket and believes it to be safe. It has made changes to the design of the turboblades in an effort to mitigate the cracking issues. Although, the company may still undertake a full redesign of the blades depending on the upcoming GAO report. If that happens, the manned launch will almost certainly be delayed.
Source:
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/243883-problems-falcon-9-design-delay-manned-missions
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 06 2017, @04:05PM
"The problem I see with man rating as it stands is in aerospace you tend to need to build that in from the start"
Cheap access to space means the vehicle just has to work.
Reusable means it has to work over and over. (Yet to be seen.)
That may be a higher bar than 'man rating'.
Just because X is nimble does not mean that they are less reliable than current aerospace.
NASA was nimble once before a variety of factors fixed it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 06 2017, @04:38PM
NASA was nimble, and pretty damned lucky. The issue that caused the deaths of the astronauts on the launchpad for Apollo 1 (pressurizing the capsule with pure oxygen on the launchpad) was standard operating procedure for the Mercury and Gemini missions. They were just damn lucky they didn't have a fire on those programs. "Nimble" can very often mean "sloppy". It achieved its goal of beating the Russians to the Moon, but that doesn't mean that it is the model a reasonable program should follow as a matter of course.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday February 06 2017, @04:54PM
Shortcuts should not be taken. Corners should not be cut. Low cost can still be a goal. Reusability can still be a goal. That said, it is still a dangerous business. No matter what you do, there will be an LOC accident sooner or later. Strive for a high level of safety. But don't cripple the program.
I'm sure aviation was much more dangerous in its early days. As the magic of electricity reached more and more homes, we learned a lot more about safety. Try looking the original electrical wiring practices of a house built in the 1930's.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 06 2017, @10:00PM
What a twisted answer.
Nimble doesn't lead to unsafe.
Nimble should lead to being able to look at the data, think, and quickly adjust to something better.
NASA today is about following rules even if they lead to something worse.
This is the definition of safe for a bureaucrat.
That is, what ever most likely to get me to retirement.