Posted on 08/09/2018 9:09:56 AM PDT by BenLurkin
"And that explosion proves they did not weight that risk high enough or do their do diligence in making the design robust the first time."
What could possibly go wrong?
LOL, I know. It is considered shorthand for obvious “unforseen effects” of things, usually from Leftists.
You know, they have an infestation of some kind of bug, so they bring in some other bug that is known to eat that bug, and the bug they bring in generates bigger problems and the whole ecological system falls apart.
Who could have ever seen that coming? Well...EVERYBODY with half a brain?
My brother and I both work in IT, and we humorously use the expression with each other as our finger hovers over the enter key, knowing full well what could possibly go wrong!
load-and-go for “spam in a can”
Thanks fieldmarshaldj. Musk hasn't made any recent claims of first manned flights in 2018, but I think they may be about to surprise all our asses.
Gus, who died during a ground test, inside a building, in an all-oxygen breathing mixture conflagration in a not-ready-for-primetime Apollo capsule with exposed wiring? Is that the Gus Grissom you mean?
It's no riskier either way. Either load first, with all the fuel right there when the crew boards, or board the crew, then fill 'er up.
They were in a simulation of the Apollo stack, my error. No fuel involved, though, period. The fire led to use of a standard atmospheric mix in Apollo spacecraft. The Russian cosmonauts who died during reentry were believed to have died as a consequence of their 100% oxygen cabin, if memory serves.
https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/apollo1info.html
SpaceX is still working on a new, safer helium tank design needed for launches with astronauts, and the debut of the company's upgraded Falcon 9 Block 5 rocket earlier this month did not count as one of seven successful missions in "crew configuration" NASA says it requires before putting astronauts aboard the vehicle, officials said Thursday... NASA says SpaceX needs to introduce that change to the Falcon 9 rocket before it starts counting the seven successful launches before a mission with astronauts. The new helium bottles are known as composite overwrapped pressure vessels, or COPVs, and they store cold helium at high pressures for injection into the rocket's propellant tanks, maintaining their pressure as the Falcon 9's engines consume kerosene and liquid oxygen in flight... NASA and SpaceX confirmed Thursday that the modified COPVs were not on the May 11 launch, but will instead be flown for the first time on a test mission of the company's Crew Dragon capsule called Demo-1, currently set for liftoff at the end of August without any astronauts on-board... "In aerospace, 'testing like we fly' is a long standing tenet for safe operations and understanding of critical systems," said Cheryl Warner, a NASA spokesperson, in response to an inquiry from Spaceflight Now. "We anticipate this configuration will be ready for Demonstration Mission 1... NASA officials have been cautious in their assessments of Boeing and SpaceX schedules, saying further delays in both vehicles are likely, with the first crew test flights potentially slipping into 2019... NASA is still considering the final-hour fueling plan proposed by SpaceX, known as "load-and-go," but agency managers are expected to decide soon whether to approve it.
New helium tank for SpaceX crew launches still waiting to fly | Stephen Clark | May 25, 2018
An anomaly during the most recent test of the Starliner, Boeing's planned space taxi, means the company's aggressive timeline to replace NASA's space shuttle may have to be pushed back. NASA ... wanted to turn a June Starliner test flight into a full-fledged mission. It was a bold move that some scientists worried could jeopardize crew safety. Too bold, perhaps. "The engines successfully ignited and ran for the full duration," Boeing said in a statement. "During engine shutdown an anomaly occurred that resulted in a propellant leak." While Boeing didn't provide further details about what exactly went wrong, sources claimed that a valve in the propulsion system did not close entirely at the conclusion of the test, according to Ars Technica, which led to the leak... It remains to be seen whether this issue will affect Starliner's development schedule. Updates on crew test schedules should be released by NASA in the coming days. Both SpaceX and Boeing's launch dates are expected to be sometime in late 2019, and likely won't be able to win certification to send astronauts to the ISS until late 2019 at the earliest. The development is a blow to Boeing, which proposed an updated and accelerated schedule in a contract modification. The amendment would add a third blue-suited crew member to the Starliner "Crew Flight Test" and extend the mission from two weeks to a full six months, according to Florida Today.
Boeing suffers setback in space taxi testing | Lulu Chang and Mark Austin | July 22, 2018
Yeah I mentioned that in post 19. I also pointed out that “but the people survived the explosion” does not make a launch into a success.
“And oh yeah, unlike the Boeing Starliner abort system, this one actually works as designed.”
Well if you read the details on the Starliner’s abort engine failure you will see that it did ignite and run the full duration. So it would have saved the crew. And it was an engine test not a full up abort system test. Finding issues is why they do tests. The SpaceX rocket that blew up was not a test. It was fully operational mission. Thank goodness the defect showed itself before they put a crew on one.
Load and go or not would make no difference as to whether the launch is a success. If anything, load and go with deep cryogenic propellant offers additional margins in case of vehicle under-performance for other reasons. Boeing’s abort failure is requiring them to go back and redesign the system to prevent another such failure. Sure, failing to close valves after the full duration burn isn’t as bad as failing to open them... but could the root cause have potentially lead to a failure to open on another attempt? I can’t say, but it doesn’t sound good. Thankfully, SpaceX has a proven pad abort system available should the AMOS problem occur, and their initial testing of the hover capabilities of the super dracos gives them additional operational experience with those engines.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.