You don't suppose, perhaps, that the engineers at SpaceX have already thought about that, do you?
As posed on this forum, the question is almost invariably posed in ignorant derision. It has grown tiresome.
I actually read the article. I know: Heresy and Blasphemy!!!
Reasons for fueling immediately before launch are given ... and are interesting. The Falcon-9 does some things a little differently from older rockets.
“Reasons for fueling immediately before launch are given ... and are interesting. The Falcon-9 does some things a little differently from older rockets. “
Before you keep throwing around ‘ignorant derision’...Yeah the SpaceX engineers considered it and went in favor of performance over extra safety. And a rocket went BOOM. You beat around bush calling the reason ‘interesting’ but the simple fact is they chose a deign that gets a bit more performance for a bit more operational risk. 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. Had that rocket not blow we very well might have had a crew on top of that same design. They probably would not have redesigned the tank if that one had not blown up.
So it is not ‘ignorant derision’ that leads some of us to question this trade off. Some of us are paying attention. And yes I know the Dragon escape systems are rated to get clear of an explosion like that. I am an engineer in the aerospace sector so I can tell you we don’t consider something safe just because people survive when it BLOW UP. Using the escape engines is inherently risky.