SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 02 2016, @08:02PM
You'd refuel your car with your children in the back seat, wouldn't you? Why shouldn't Musky refuel his rocket while you wait inside in your seat? Musky is a charismatic supergenius, and you are like children compared to him, aren't you? Certainly you don't believe Musky would endanger you in any way?
(Score: 0, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 02 2016, @09:43PM
I have to admit, the Musky troll is the only one that routinely makes me laugh.
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Thursday November 03 2016, @04:39AM
Musky troll is best troll.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Wednesday November 02 2016, @08:40PM
"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.
It doesn't get any safer when you have dozens of people near that propellant loading crew into a capsule. The rebuttal here is:
a) Less people near a huge load of propellant after it's fueled.
b) The only people who are near, the crew would have a Launch Abort System (LAS). It's not perfect since there is a fair chance of serious injury even when the system works perfectly.
c) The launch time of window is very limited by the unusually cold temperature of the LOX propellant which has been chilled to near its freezing point. Adding in time to load crew puts serious and unsafe time pressure on the launch.
I have no problems with SpaceX working this procedure out or for that matter, crew rarely dying from propellant fueling mishaps (frequency as always is the key matter). What I do have problems with is yet another case of poor risk management by NASA which is notorious for overlooking huge risks like loss of the Vehicle Assembly Building in a hurricane or due to a solid rocket motor lighting up at a bad time, or losing the International Space Station to a debris impact, but has no trouble throwing all sorts of spurious safety theater on a NASA contractor. It's also worth noting at this time that SpaceX has more experience with this fueling procedure than NASA does.
Sure, SpaceX needs to demonstrate via a fair number of successful launches that they can do this procedure reliably. That's a huge problem in the wake of this accident which if it had happened during a crewed mission might result in injury or death to crew members despite a LAS. But NASA routinely does stuff that hasn't been done before. It's not that conservative even with respect to human safety.
(Score: 3, Informative) by JNCF on Wednesday November 02 2016, @09:21PM
That's a huge problem in the wake of this accident which if it had happened during a crewed mission might result in injury or death to crew members despite a LAS.
That fire wasn't fast enough to catch the Dragon, according to Musky [twitter.com] himself. If you can't trust the Musk, check out this sweet video evidence. [youtube.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 02 2016, @09:37PM
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
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
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
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.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Wednesday November 02 2016, @09:40PM
You're assuming that the fueling process is no more risky than when it has already been loaded. In fact the risk is much higher during the fueling process.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday November 02 2016, @09:52PM
the risk is much higher during the fueling process.
If you go back and check all the famous vehicle explosions that NASA and Roscosmos have had you will find that fueling is seldom the issue. Maybe that is because everyone is extra careful, but the accident record does not show that fueling is that risky.
Launch is the major risk point.
Static rockets sitting there fueled and waiting are just about never the risk.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday November 03 2016, @03:02PM
Yes, fueled and ready is just about never the risk. That's why NASA is good with the astronauts boarding then. If a tank was going to burst or a coupling was going to break, it would probably have happened during fueling. That's the part where you don't want anyone near the rocket. It's an avoidable risk.
Naturally, the actual launch and operation of the rocket is more dangerous still, but if it's to be a manned flight, the risk cannot be avoided.
(Score: 2) by driven on Thursday November 03 2016, @12:26PM
It doesn't get any safer when you have dozens of people near that propellant loading crew into a capsule...
Actually, it does get safer: when you have NOBODY near the propellant loading area. No possible deaths no matter what == safer.
If I were an astronaut, I'd rather die in flight or due to something mission related than die in a fireball on the landing pad while it's fueling. Completely avoidable.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday November 03 2016, @01:12PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 03 2016, @05:52PM
You can load them after the fueling of course.
Key word(s) being missed here are fueling and fueled, present & past tense.
Dozens of people can wait until it's finished fueling. Sparks, currents, static electricity, fireball wielding bats, etc. Something can (and has) happened... therefore if no one is near it but a small fueling crew... well the quantify of deaths is down.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 02 2016, @09:43PM
It sounds like the extra cold propellants cause one to need to do things one would rather not do.
Perhaps there is a way to continue to cool the propellants after they are in the rocket so that these two issues are not coupled.
Then one can choose what is best for the folks and the fuel separately.
I think that operationally, there will be times where loading folks and then having a delay due to the rocket will not be very safe from a tired humans make mistakes perspective.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 03 2016, @01:25AM
The launch windows to the ISS are brief for everyone. Fuel temperature makes no difference.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 03 2016, @01:20PM
A known, fixed window doesn't cause hurry, you just plan a nice relaxed sequence leading to the window.
Relaxed means with extra time for holds to sort unexpected things out.
The fuel strategy limits the ability to provide this time.
Other strategies with the same launch window don't have this.
(Score: 2) by Some call me Tim on Thursday November 03 2016, @05:06AM
From what I've found in brief searches, SpaceX is using carbon composite over wrapped pressure vessels inside the LOX tank. Why the heck would you subject that stuff to cryogenic temperatures considering the heat generated when pressurizing and the extreme cold? Having worked on rockets, all the pressure vessels I've seen were Titanium spheres that were protected from temperature extremes.
Questioning science is how you do science!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 03 2016, @06:41AM
Maybe the carbon composite weighs less than the titanium? It's all about getting that weight down.