Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by chromas on Monday August 13 2018, @04:00PM   Printer-friendly

The NASA manager overseeing development of Boeing and SpaceX's commercial crew ferry ships says the space agency has approved SpaceX's proposal to strap in astronauts atop Falcon 9 rockets, then fuel the launchers in the final hour of the countdown as the company does for its uncrewed missions.

The "load-and-go" procedure has become standard for SpaceX's satellite launches, in which an automatic countdown sequencer commands chilled kerosene and cryogenic liquid oxygen to flow into the Falcon 9 rocket in the final minutes before liftoff.

[...] SpaceX's "load-and-go" procedure raised concerns after a Falcon 9 rocket exploded on its launch pad at Cape Canaveral in September 2016. The fiery accident occurred in the final minutes of a countdown while propellants were flowing into the rocket before a hold-down engine firing, destroying the launcher and an Israeli-owned communications satellite on-board.

Officials from SpaceX said the Crew Dragon's escape system, comprising a set of high-thrust SuperDraco engines around the circumference of the capsule, would be quick enough to push the spacecraft and its crew away from such an explosion during fueling.

The abort thrusters will be activated and armed before fueling of the Falcon 9 during crewed launches.

SpaceX plans an unmanned, in-flight abort test prior to the first crewed flight, which is tentatively scheduled for April 2019.

Source: https://spaceflightnow.com/2018/08/09/nasa-signs-off-on-spacexs-load-and-go-procedure-for-crew-launches/


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This discussion has been archived.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: 4, Insightful) by ikanreed on Monday August 13 2018, @05:53PM (2 children)

    by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Monday August 13 2018, @05:53PM (#721066) Journal

    What do you mean by this having expert analysis that directly undercuts my amateur observation? Surely I cannot be wrong about this?

    (I'm totally wrong)

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=1, Underrated=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 13 2018, @06:13PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 13 2018, @06:13PM (#721075)

    This is how you do it buzzy my boy! The joke would complement your style, but you need the part in parenthesis.

  • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Monday August 13 2018, @06:55PM

    by bob_super (1357) on Monday August 13 2018, @06:55PM (#721099)

    Considering that NASA was initially against the idea, then got convinced that it's safe by SpaceX, there's a good chance that it has been reviewed by a lot of experts who had a significant incentive to not put their name on the approval of something that could turn into horrible PR.

    The NASA version of Titanic would have hit the iceberg straight on (better in hindsight), and kept pushing the iceberg all the way to NY, before getting retrofitted five years later with an oversized rudder. SpaceX risks a physics Nobel prize for managing to turn that ship.