Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Wednesday May 29 2019, @09:28PM   Printer-friendly
from the did-they-nickname-that-spacecraft-"Puff"? dept.

Investigation into Crew Dragon incident continues - SpaceNews.com

WASHINGTON — More than a month after a Crew Dragon spacecraft was destroyed in a test of its propulsion system, NASA and SpaceX investigators are still working to determine the cause of the accident and its implications for upcoming test flights.

In a May 28 presentation to the NASA Advisory Council's human exploration and operations committee, Kathy Lueders, manager of the commercial crew program at NASA, offered few updates on the progress of the investigation into the April 20 incident at a SpaceX pad at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida.

In that incident, SpaceX was testing both the Draco thrusters and larger SuperDraco abort thrusters in preparation for an in-flight abort test of the capsule that, at the time, was scheduled for the end of June. "An anomaly occurred during activation of the SuperDraco system," she said, but offered no details on what caused that anomaly.

[...] With the investigation ongoing, Lueders said the dates of both the in-flight abort test and the Demo-2 mission are under review. Assembly of the Demo-2 capsule continues, she said, although she said workers are keeping open the vehicle's propulsion system in case they need to make modifications as a result of the investigation. "They're making progress in a lot of the other areas while trying to keep, most particularly in the prop area, access to the systems that may need to be modified," she said.

She didn't give an indication of when that investigation will be completed. "You don't push your anomaly investigation team too quick," she said, stressing the importance for them to be "methodical" while working through all parts of the fault tree of potential causes.


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This discussion has been archived.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 Thursday May 30 2019, @12:50AM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 30 2019, @12:50AM (#849130)

    Traditionally, emergency escape engines are simple solid fuel, mounted on top - shielded from the explosion of stages by the spaceship with excellent fire resistance. But they are single-use, and they do not perform controlled landing.

    Musk wanted reusability. The only way to achieve that is to use liquid fuel engines on the bottom (rim) of the capsule. That does the job, but the price is high. The fuel and the engines are too close to the crew. The fuel - hydrazine - is poisonous, burns easily. The engines are complex, and they do not start fast. The engines are not shielded from a fireball just below.

    Musk is a showman. He wants a theatrical performance out of space travel. Sometimes his requests come close to safety margins. The cause of this explosion will be found and fixed, but let's hope we never need to test the escape system with crew, on an exploding rocket.

  • (Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday May 30 2019, @12:56AM

    by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Thursday May 30 2019, @12:56AM (#849132) Journal

    Crew Dragon is just a way to grab the available ISS Commercial Crew dollars. Starship is what will ultimately be carrying hundreds or thousands of people.

    The capsule that exploded had landed on the water, and NASA wants a fresh one every time for crew (reused ones can send cargo to the ISS). If that turns out to be the source of the problem, then the astronauts will probably be fine.

    --
    [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by ElizabethGreene on Thursday May 30 2019, @03:36AM

    by ElizabethGreene (6748) Subscriber Badge on Thursday May 30 2019, @03:36AM (#849180) Journal

    If we're second guessing that design decision, can we talk about Blue origin's far sketchier placement of the abort engine too? It's literally the coffee table in the middle of the crew cabin.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 30 2019, @09:22AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 30 2019, @09:22AM (#849230)

    Accusing Musk of compromising safety for the sake of being a showman is such extreme crap. This design has nothing to do with "showmanship." It is a technical decision made for good reasons: to share fuel with the maneuvering thrusters, and to avoid having to have a separate, disposable abort system. Every additional system on a rocket adds weight and complexity.

    Hydrazine fuel has been used on rockets for decades. While the fuel itself is toxic, the astronauts don't drink it.

    We still do not know the cause of the accident. It is still very possible that the explosion was due to damage and not a design flaw.

    You can always tell who has an agenda, it's whoever is rushing to judgement and placing blame without any facts.