While NASA's concerns are valid, I think they're approaching it as if the Falcon series was a NASA project where each rocket is a distinct design with distinct safety records. But the Falcon series is a single series with slight changes, so the over-all safety record must be considered, and any improvements and lessons learned over the flights.Washington Post wrote:When Elon Musk and his team at SpaceX were looking to make their Falcon 9 rocket even more powerful, they came up with a creative idea — keep the propellant at super-cold temperatures to shrink its size, allowing them to pack more of it into the tanks.
But the approach comes with a major risk, according to some safety experts. At those extreme temperatures, the propellant would need to be loaded just before takeoff — while astronauts are aboard. An accident, or a spark, during this maneuver, known as “load-and-go,” could set off an explosion.
The proposal has raised alarms for members of Congress and NASA safety advisers as the agency and SpaceX prepare to launch humans into orbit as early as this year. One watchdog group labeled load-and-go a “potential safety risk.” A NASA advisory group warned in a letter that the method was “contrary to booster safety criteria that has been in place for over 50 years.”
WaPo...owned by Bezos...who hopes to compete with his currently vaporware Blue Origin program.KnightsFan wrote: Sun May 06, 2018 8:55 am It looks like NASA and Congress may try to put the brakes on SpaceX's manned flights due to the load-and-go procedures.
Elon Musk’s SpaceX is using a powerful rocket technology. NASA advisers say it could put lives at risk.
While NASA's concerns are valid, I think they're approaching it as if the Falcon series was a NASA project where each rocket is a distinct design with distinct safety records. But the Falcon series is a single series with slight changes, so the over-all safety record must be considered, and any improvements and lessons learned over the flights.Washington Post wrote:When Elon Musk and his team at SpaceX were looking to make their Falcon 9 rocket even more powerful, they came up with a creative idea — keep the propellant at super-cold temperatures to shrink its size, allowing them to pack more of it into the tanks.
But the approach comes with a major risk, according to some safety experts. At those extreme temperatures, the propellant would need to be loaded just before takeoff — while astronauts are aboard. An accident, or a spark, during this maneuver, known as “load-and-go,” could set off an explosion.
The proposal has raised alarms for members of Congress and NASA safety advisers as the agency and SpaceX prepare to launch humans into orbit as early as this year. One watchdog group labeled load-and-go a “potential safety risk.” A NASA advisory group warned in a letter that the method was “contrary to booster safety criteria that has been in place for over 50 years.”
Apparently NASA and SpaceX have been working the issue for a number of years as they run through the process for human rating the rocket. Boeing has been as well. Apparently rockets are risky whether the process is 'passengers then fuel' or 'fuel then passengers'. it's looking like SpaceX's launch abort system (the 8 rocket engines in the capsule) means fewer humans are at risk if they load the crew first, then fuel, as the capsule can move clear quickly. If there was an explosion while crew were being loaded on a fueled stack, it risks the crew and the ground support folks helping them. Boeing favors risking more people; SpaceX favors risking fewer. It'll be interesting to see how the final approval docs read.FYI - Elon Musk had a teleconference before last weeks' first launch of the Falcon 9 Block 5. One of the questions was about the fuel/pax loading process.KnightsFan wrote: Sun May 06, 2018 8:55 am It looks like NASA and Congress may try to put the brakes on SpaceX's manned flights due to the load-and-go procedures.
Elon Musk’s SpaceX is using a powerful rocket technology. NASA advisers say it could put lives at risk.
While NASA's concerns are valid, I think they're approaching it as if the Falcon series was a NASA project where each rocket is a distinct design with distinct safety records. But the Falcon series is a single series with slight changes, so the over-all safety record must be considered, and any improvements and lessons learned over the flights.Washington Post wrote:When Elon Musk and his team at SpaceX were looking to make their Falcon 9 rocket even more powerful, they came up with a creative idea — keep the propellant at super-cold temperatures to shrink its size, allowing them to pack more of it into the tanks.
But the approach comes with a major risk, according to some safety experts. At those extreme temperatures, the propellant would need to be loaded just before takeoff — while astronauts are aboard. An accident, or a spark, during this maneuver, known as “load-and-go,” could set off an explosion.
The proposal has raised alarms for members of Congress and NASA safety advisers as the agency and SpaceX prepare to launch humans into orbit as early as this year. One watchdog group labeled load-and-go a “potential safety risk.” A NASA advisory group warned in a letter that the method was “contrary to booster safety criteria that has been in place for over 50 years.”
Here's an example of the 'zero/zero' (no speed/ no altitude) abort test they did with Dragon V1. The'll do another abort test later this year from the 'max Q' /maximum aerodynamic force/pressure point in flight.Stephen Clark, Spaceflight Now: Hi Elon. Thanks for chatting with us before the launch. We know astronauts will one day be launching on the Block 5, and I understand NASA is still studying whether they're going to be comfortable with the Load and Go fueling process. And I know you and SpaceX have a different view of the risk in that operation. So do you think you can convince NASA of the safety of the Load and Go fueling process? And would you be willing to change or adjust that procedure for Commercial Crew if NASA requests it. Thanks.
Elon Musk: Yeah, yeah, absolutely, yeah. I think that issue's been somewhat overblown. We certainly could load the propellant and then have the astronauts board Dragon. That's certainly something we could do. But I don't think it's going to be necessary, anymore than passengers on an aircraft need to wait until the aircraft is fully fueled before boarding. I mean, that would be a crazy delay if everyone off of the aircraft and until it gets fueled, now you can't board. But no, it's normal to load propellant, to load fuel on an aircraft while boarding, or have the fuel fully loaded before boarding. It's not a fundamental risk. You know, we need to make sure about things like the COPVs. I'd say like, the only material risk I'm aware of is the COPV, and the amount of testing and research that's gone into COPV safety is gigantic. This is by far the most advanced pressure vessel ever developed by humanity. It's nuts. And I've personally gone over the test design, I've lost count how many times. But the top engineering minds at SpaceX have agonized over this. We've tested the living daylights out of it. We've been in deep, deep discussions with NASA about this. And I think we're in a good situation. We do have a contingency plan for the COPV, which I'd say would really be the only thing that represents a risk of any materiality. Which would be a switch from high-strength carbon fiber with aluminum liner to a, sort of like, an Inconel sphere. We have a contingency plan for that, if need be. But I think that is unlikely to be necessary. But that's really the only thing that I'd consider to be the most [legitimate?] of the risks. But yeah, this is really not something that should be needed. I mean, we obviously have competitors that are willing to make hay out of it, but I really do not see this as a risk representing any materiality. And worst case scenario, we've already demonstrated that Dragon is fully capable of a safe abort from zero velocity, zero altitude, and escaping whatever fireball that may occur on the pad, even in a worst case situation. So I really do not think this represents a safety issue for astronauts. But if, for any reason, NASA felt different, we can adjust our operational procedures to load propellant before the astronauts board. But I really think this is an overblown issue.
Wednesday, Nov. 21
10 a.m. PST (1 p.m. EST) – News conference: Mission engineering overview
11 a.m. PST (2 p.m. EST) – News conference: Mission science overview
Sunday, Nov. 25
10 a.m. PST (1 p.m. EST) – News conference: Final pre-landing update
1 p.m. PST (4 p.m. EST) – NASA Social: InSight team Q&A
Monday, Nov. 26: Landing Day
11 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. PST (2 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. EST) – Live landing commentary on the NASA TV Public Channel and online. In addition, an uninterrupted, clean feed of cameras from inside JPL mission control, with mission audio only, will be available at the same time on the NASA TV Media Channel, at www.nasa.gov/ntv and at https://www.youtube.com/user/JPLraw/live.
About 12 noon PST (3 p.m. EST) – Expected time of InSight touchdown on Mars
No earlier than 2 p.m. PST (5 p.m. EST) – Post-landing news conference
Mars has just received its newest robotic resident. NASA's Interior Exploration using Seismic Investigations, Geodesy and Heat Transport (InSight) lander successfully touched down on the Red Planet after an almost seven-month, 300-million-mile (458-million-kilometer) journey from Earth.
InSight's two-year mission will be to study the deep interior of Mars to learn how all celestial bodies with rocky surfaces, including Earth and the Moon, formed.
InSight launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California May 5. The lander touched down Monday, Nov. 26, near Mars' equator on the western side of a flat, smooth expanse of lava called Elysium Planitia, at 11:52:59 a.m. PST (2:52:59 p.m. EST).
"Today, we successfully landed on Mars for the eighth time in human history," said NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine. "InSight will study the interior of Mars and will teach us valuable science as we prepare to send astronauts to the Moon and later to Mars. This accomplishment represents the ingenuity of America and our international partners, and it serves as a testament to the dedication and perseverance of our team. The best of NASA is yet to come, and it is coming soon."
Conspiracy time! The picture clearly shows a small set of "Stonehenge" stones proving that there is life on Mars. Expect NASA to cover this up at any moment!Bisbee wrote: Mon Nov 26, 2018 5:02 pm Amazing. Another pinpoint landing on Mars. Those of us into target practice should certainly appreciate this feat... imaging shooting your iPhone out a long distance but land softly enough that it can still take a picture and upload it into the web.
Here then is the very first pic of Mars from InSight:
1F784E12-E2B4-4993-944E-5D8FDB651828.png
I enjoyed watching the landing and then seeing this dusty dust cover first pic.Bisbee wrote: Mon Nov 26, 2018 5:02 pm Amazing. Another pinpoint landing on Mars. Those of us into target practice should certainly appreciate this feat... imaging shooting your iPhone out a long distance but land softly enough that it can still take a picture and upload it into the web.
Here then is the very first pic of Mars from InSight:
1F784E12-E2B4-4993-944E-5D8FDB651828.png
featureless wrote: Tue Nov 27, 2018 9:07 am Very cool, Andy. Got to go with yuck on the cake and Tang, though.
Needed something Mars red - the existence of gluten and copious amounts of 'FD&C red number 27' wasn't a consideration. (It was an MRE cake at that - it was packaged before InSight's launch.) Tang has been a launch and landing ritual for me for about as long as there's been Tang. I'll do gastronomic penance for a while...well, until the SSO launch on the 28th. Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 3 guests
It's landed.
