SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
SpaceX's controversial rocket fueling procedure appears 'viable,' says NASA safety advisory panel
A NASA safety advisory group weighed in Thursday on SpaceX's highly scrutinized proposal to load rocket propellants while astronauts are aboard, saying it appears to be a "viable option."
Several members of the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel said that as long as potential hazards can be controlled, loading crew before fueling is finished could be acceptable.
"My sense is that, assuming there are adequate, verifiable controls identified and implemented for the credible hazard causes, and those which could potentially result in an emergency situation ... it appears load-and-go is a viable option for the program to consider," panel member Capt. Brent Jett Jr. (Ret.) said during Thursday's meeting.
SpaceX and Boeing Co. each have NASA contracts to develop separate crew capsules to transport astronauts to the International Space Station. Both SpaceX and Boeing are scheduled to conduct uncrewed flight tests of their vehicles in August, with crewed flight tests set for several months later.
A Falcon 9 blew up during propellant loading in 2016.
Previously: NASA Advisory Committee Skeptical of SpaceX Manned Refueling Plan
Related: SpaceX Identifies Cause of September Explosion
Problems With SpaceX Falcon 9 Design Could Delay Manned Missions
(Score: 3, Interesting) by tftp on Tuesday May 22 2018, @06:36AM (3 children)
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday May 22 2018, @04:29PM (1 child)
Pretty much my take on it.
Is it really safer to go to a pad that has a giant bomb on it, take the elevator, climb aboard, then finally strap in and close the hatch ?
I would go for strapping in first, check the escape rockets are on, then load the bomb, even if that's a long boring process.
Sure, the odds of kaboom are higher during loading, but even if they are 50x higher than when the rocket is just sitting there loaded while I get on it, the odds of survival in the latter case are much much lower.
Anne Frankly, if I ain't going to space today because of a giant boom, riding the escape system is the thrill of a lifetime (even if it breaks more ribs than a real takeoff), when looking at the rocket go boom from a safe distance is just a terrible -while awesome- disappointment.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 22 2018, @05:47PM
In traditional case you approach the fully loaded bomb wearing just a light spacesuit. If anything happens while you are riding the elevator and packing in, you burn up to fine ashes. Consider that the rocket is venting fuel components most of the time.
In this case you are walking up to an inert metal tube. Once you are in, the descent capsule can withstand some serious fire on its own, because that's how it lands. And the rocket on top will fire soon enough. So it might be that the crew is even safer this way, being always protected.
(Score: 2) by darkfeline on Wednesday May 23 2018, @06:06PM
Isn't the explosion the launch escape system?
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 22 2018, @12:27PM
The article links to a news article that reports on the Nasa report.
For now, human space flight involves a crew strapping themselves to a really big firework after Wiley Coyote.
'Safety' advisory panels can dress it up, but the nature of the game is always going to involve balance between extraordinary risk and an extraordinary ride.
The question is how to pick a smart balance.
Using solids in the shuttle was an interesting balance point way outside the comfort zone of many at the time.
Load and go may be similar.
It seems to me that the best argument for load and go is that the crew is never helpless whenever the thing has the fuel to make a big kaboom.
The argument against is that the fueling process is the second most likely thing to ignite the kaboom.
I'd like to actually understand what SpaceX did to the He tank and fueling process to lower the unscheduled disassembly odds.
So, anybody know where the Nasa report is?