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.