Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
NASA

NASA Supports SpaceX Plan To Fuel Rockets With Astronauts On Board (engadget.com) 165

For years, NASA has been debating whether to allow SpaceX to fuel its spacecraft with super-cold propellant after astronauts have boarded. While the company typically fuels its rockets shortly before launch in order to prevent the coolant from warming up too much, the practice has been deemed "a potential safety risk" by NASA safety advisers due to the high risk of an explosion. Now, according to Engadget, NASA has "decided that it will move forward with the SpaceX plan to fuel rockets after astronauts have already boarded." From the report: "To make this decision, our teams conducted an extensive review of the SpaceX ground operations, launch vehicle design, escape systems and operational history," Kathy Lueders, manager of NASA's Commercial Crew Program, said in a statement. "Safety for our personnel was the driver for this analysis, and the team's assessment was that this plan presents the least risk." SpaceX will have to prove its system is safe, however. The company will have to demonstrate the fueling procedure five times prior to its first crewed flight and afterwards, NASA will assess any remaining risk before certifying SpaceX's system. In September 2016, a Falcon 9 rocket exploded on the launchpad while it was being loaded with propellant. No injuries were reported, but it didn't look good to NASA which was already reviewing the fueling procedure.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

NASA Supports SpaceX Plan To Fuel Rockets With Astronauts On Board

Comments Filter:
  • by petes_PoV ( 912422 ) on Tuesday August 21, 2018 @02:53AM (#57165206)

    according to Engadget, NASA has "decided that it will move forward with the SpaceX plan to fuel rockets after astronauts have already boarded.

    And maybe NASA will learn a thing or two about how to conduct a space-launch operation, as well.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Feynman had some choice things to say about NASA's grasp of "potential safety risks". I hear they haven't materially improved since.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      The Shuttle would in no way pass the safety requirements being met by Boeing and SpaceX. The Shuttle was unsafe by design. Neither would the SLS, which will not have to abide the requirement for a number of successful unmanned flights before flying with crew.

      NASA is giving ITSELF a pass on things it is requiring of the private launch companies. Of course it is a good idea to do those things.

      • by ColaMan ( 37550 )

        From what I understand of the whole certification process, in order to be approved you can either do a whole bunch of component testing and paperwork, or you can fly your rocket a number of times.

        SLS is going the component testing/paperwork route, SpaceX is reducing the paperwork and flying their rockets.

        What it does highlight is the flexibility in the process. The old-school space crowd can still do it their way with the paperwork and the new guys can just go fly rockets and in the end you can get two diff

        • by Agripa ( 139780 )

          From what I understand of the whole certification process, in order to be approved you can either do a whole bunch of component testing and paperwork, or you can fly your rocket a number of times.

          SLS is going the component testing/paperwork route, SpaceX is reducing the paperwork and flying their rockets.

          What it does highlight is the flexibility in the process. The old-school space crowd can still do it their way with the paperwork and the new guys can just go fly rockets and in the end you can get two different and probably-safe rockets out of it.

          NASA is not allowing SpaceX to achieve certification by just flying their rockets. Because they are reusable, NASA is also requiring teardown and analysis which is where the requirement to improve their turbopump design came from. When the same problem with cracked turbine blades was found in the shuttle main engines, NASA changed the failure requirements to allow them.

  • Whoa. (Score:5, Funny)

    by msauve ( 701917 ) on Tuesday August 21, 2018 @03:19AM (#57165278)
    They're going to fuel the rockets with the on-board astronauts? Soylent green is rocket fuel, too!
    • by Anonymous Coward

      Everything is a fuel with a suffiently strong oxidiser.

      • Everything is "a fuel", but not everything is "a rocket fuel".

        Some things are just disaster fuels, and the race to the bottom called "cost cutting at all costs" is among the most disastrous of the bunch.

        • Rocket fuel is usually just kerosene or methane - they have a pretty decent energy density, but not really that much greater than fat, though a couple times greater than sugar or protein.. Now, all the water in those astronauts is going to slow things down a bit, but dry 'em out and powder them first to aid efficient combustion, and they should work just fine.

          Disaster fuels are a whole different pithos of problems - you don't care so much about energy density there as you do about instability - TNT and gun

          • by BranMan ( 29917 )

            You forgot hypergolic and flesh dissolving - like with fuming red nitric acid. Then you've got a party!

    • > Soylent green is rocket fuel, too!

      When comparison shopping, please remember that Soylent Green is made from all natural ingredients.
  • First, it's Russian Roulette, due to the lack of safety culture. (Note: I've worked at NASA.) This means that accidents might not happen the first time, or the twenty first. Each spin that ends up OK will convince others that it's safe, when it's really just lucky. Five successes is like rolling dice five times and not getting a one. It's going to happen. I would want something a little more technical, such as detailed analysis of failure modes, extensive sensory data showing precisely what is happening phy

    • Don't worry. If there is a problem it will be fix in the next over-the-air update.

      Rei
    • by vadim_t ( 324782 ) on Tuesday August 21, 2018 @06:28AM (#57165764) Homepage

      > Third, I don't see the added value. The refrigeration doesn't have to be internal (so you don't need the extra weight on board and can avoid ice buildup).

      SpaceX uses densified propellant. Meaning, it's loaded at a temperature significantly below boiling point, which means simply replentishing what boils off doesn't work, as at that point it's already too warm to be useful.

      That's why SpaceX needs to abort if the rocket spends too long sitting on the pad. The only solution if the propellant warms up too much is to drain all the fuel, and refuel the rocket again.

      That's unless you're suggesting they should make some sort of giant cooler that wraps around the entire rocket.

      > Fourth, we know from the launch of the car that the guidance systems and engine control are flaky.

      If I recall correctly, given that this was a test, they simply pushed the rocket as far as it would go, and weren't aiming for an exact orbit.

      • by Anonymous Coward

        Heh, rocket koozies. Tesla could sell advertising space.

      • by Anonymous Coward

        "That's unless you're suggesting they should make some sort of giant cooler that wraps around the entire rocket."

        Yes. The momo-2 has such a thing built into the launch pad tower. It wraps around the section of the rocket with the fuel tanks and retracts just before launch. If you wanted to, instead of just insulation, it could be a refrigeration unit.

        • by dasunt ( 249686 )

          The momo-2 has such a thing built into the launch pad tower. It wraps around the section of the rocket with the fuel tanks and retracts just before launch. If you wanted to, instead of just insulation, it could be a refrigeration unit.

          Judging from Google search results, the Momo-2 seems most notable for exploding at launch.

      • by Agripa ( 139780 )

        > Third, I don't see the added value. The refrigeration doesn't have to be internal (so you don't need the extra weight on board and can avoid ice buildup).

        SpaceX uses densified propellant. Meaning, it's loaded at a temperature significantly below boiling point, which means simply replentishing what boils off doesn't work, as at that point it's already too warm to be useful.

        That's why SpaceX needs to abort if the rocket spends too long sitting on the pad. The only solution if the propellant warms up too much is to drain all the fuel, and refuel the rocket again.

        That's unless you're suggesting they should make some sort of giant cooler that wraps around the entire rocket.

        If the tanks can take it, then they could be pumped down while the fuel is loaded to evaporatively lower the temperature of the fuel and oxidizer.

    • So we need to do it gold plated or not at all? You really did work for the US government, I can tell.
    • Thing is putting astronauts in a capsule equipped with a Launch Escape System while the rocket beneath can't explode yet, makes it actually *safer*.

      • by MachineShedFred ( 621896 ) on Tuesday August 21, 2018 @07:17AM (#57165928) Journal

        And don't forget that if you are pre-fueling before crew ingress, you've got all kinds of ground crew crawling around on the tower and such, that's far more people next to a big hazardous device. If you fuel when the astronauts are in the capsule belted in and buttoned up, and everyone else has a chance to GTFO before the fuel pumps turn on, the maximum risk to life would be the flight crew and they have far better chances due to the launch escape system.

        Obviously no one wants anyone to die, but in the proposed scenario the only people around would be the astronauts, one with their hand on an abort handle capable of getting them out of there with extreme rapidity with a twist of the wrist. That seems like a better scenario to me.

        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward

          out of there with extreme rapidity with a twist of the wrist

          And it doesn't even take that much. There is an automatic process which can trigger the LES upon loss of connectivity through a wire that runs the length of the rocket. The moment that wire is broken, the LES can fire, and this can react faster than any human could.

        • Actually, no hand on the button, so to speak. Instead, super fast sensors that trigger in an instance, combined a redundant set of 8 dracos ( and only 4 required ). I would guess that they are likely to have a false abort, and yet, no injuries.
      • by Anonymous Coward

        Thing is putting astronauts in a capsule equipped with a Launch Escape System while the rocket beneath can't explode yet, makes it actually *safer*.

        Yes, thank you. The number of people in this thread (intentionally?) misunderstanding this is rather large.

        SpaceX's approach is SAFER for the astronauts. If I were in their shoes, I would want to be in the capsule, buttoned up, with a primed escape system under me, than walking around outside a fuelled OR fuelling rocket.

    • by religionofpeas ( 4511805 ) on Tuesday August 21, 2018 @07:14AM (#57165908)

      Second, potentially, it could be made safe, but only by raising costs

      Money is not the issue. Late fuel loading increases rocket performance.

      The refrigeration doesn't have to be internal

      What are you talking about ? There's no refrigeration.

      Fourth, we know from the launch of the car that the guidance systems and engine control are flaky.

      How is the guidance system software relevant for the fuel loading procedure ? The explosion happened because the designers didn't completely anticipate all the physical interactions between the oxygen and the carbon wrapped pressure vessel. Once you do understand these systems, the software is the easy part.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      >First, it's Russian Roulette, due to the lack of safety culture.

      As if NASA has one? They are the ones who launched Challenger outside of safe conditions and they are the ones who ignored the obvious damage to Columbia and let them re enter when they could have easily waited at the ISS for a rescue/repair mission. SpaceX has had what? 2 RUDS their in their entire history? That's a better record than anyone else.

      >Second, potentially, it could be made safe, but only by raising costs.

      NASA seems to think

    • Risks need to be managed or avoided in rocket science.

      Gene Kranz has some insights into this, having lived though Apollo as flight director of multiple missions. https://www.reddit.com/r/Space... [reddit.com] Rocket science is a dangerous business, people WILL die. At issue is an analysis of the risks, mitigation strategies for the identified risks and the acceptance of the remaining risks that cannot be controlled.

      Where I share your concern with Space-X's process, the question is really for the rocket scientists

    • First, it's Russian Roulette, due to the lack of safety culture. (Note: I've worked at NASA.)

      Which NASA did you work for?

      The NASA that put man on the moon when it was run by Germans / ex-Nazis?

      The NASA that then went to hell with the hopeless Shuttle program, once the politicians took over (both inside and outside NASA)

      The NASA who's safety "culture" was panned following BOTH the Challenger and Columbia disasters; especially the later which basically proved they'd learned nothing, changed nothing, fixed nothing since killing the Challenger crew through bad design and lousy management.

    • by cstacy ( 534252 )

      First, it's Russian Roulette

      Geez, enough with the Russians already!

      Five successes is like rolling dice five times and not getting a one. It's going to happen. I would want something a little more technical, such as detailed analysis of failure modes, extensive sensory data showing precisely what is happening physically and electrically, and an ultrasound scan of metal items before and after the series of runs to determine how they're handling the stress.

      I assume all that is done and will be done; the thing about trying it out 5 times is that it's 5 more chances to see what was missed in all that.

    • by bruce_the_loon ( 856617 ) on Tuesday August 21, 2018 @11:21AM (#57167552) Homepage

      Fourth, we know from the launch of the car that the guidance systems and engine control are flaky. They failed to put the car on the intended orbit by a few million miles. Buggy software in a rocket is never good, but said buggy software controls the refuelling systems and we've seen where that goes. All over the landscape. Now, SpaceX and NASA want to do this with people on board.

      Nothing to do with guidance or engine control. They just let the second stage engine burn to fuel exhaustion and it burned longer than expected. Except for the aborted ride-along satellite with the one ISS servicing mission because of the single engine failure in the first stage, all their launches have been precisely where the client wanted them. Including the spy sats.

      • by eth1 ( 94901 )

        Fourth, we know from the launch of the car that the guidance systems and engine control are flaky. They failed to put the car on the intended orbit by a few million miles. Buggy software in a rocket is never good, but said buggy software controls the refuelling systems and we've seen where that goes. All over the landscape. Now, SpaceX and NASA want to do this with people on board.

        Nothing to do with guidance or engine control. They just let the second stage engine burn to fuel exhaustion and it burned longer than expected. Except for the aborted ride-along satellite with the one ISS servicing mission because of the single engine failure in the first stage, all their launches have been precisely where the client wanted them. Including the spy sats.

        And never mind that the car was successfully launched on the FIRST flight of a new rocket. Oh, having the two boosters land at the same time on a bullseye is some really crappy guidance and engine control, too, let's not forget about that...

    • *Life* is Russian roulette - and there's no such thing as a safe *anything*. All safety procedures exist only to lower the risks, not eliminate them.

      If SpaceX can get 21 missions before a disaster, that's not actually that bad - NASA only managed 24 before the Challenger exploded, And another 88 before the Columbia followed suite.

      Meanwhile, the actual launch statistics, the Falcon 9 has almost half as many missions under it's belt as the Shuttle (60 versus 135) and has had two explosions, on launch 19 whic

    • SpaceX is cheap because it cuts corners.

      SpaceX is cheap because it's reusable. Which is another way of saying more durable. Their first stage components are built to last 10+ flights, while other rockets are built to last 1 flight.

  • SpaceX also plans to fuel its ship in parking orbit in the future, topping off many times, with presumably crew and payload aboard. What does NASA think about that? The fuel will not be supercold I think, but explosions in orbit could anyway cause a debris cascade making space travel unsafe for years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
    • A shaded fueling depot in space seems like the perfect opportunity for naturally super-cooled fuels. The dangers should be less though because the fuel won't warm and expand until made to.

  • This sounds a bit inhumane. At the very least, they could use puppies or kittens.
  • The image it invoked in my head of astronauts either being used as rocket fuel, or some kind of poop based fuel, or something.

    I know the actual explanation was more realistic, but the former was more fun.

  • This is just space shuttle thinking applied once again. You ok a thing because you want to do a thing. That's all. Wait for the disasters.

A committee takes root and grows, it flowers, wilts and dies, scattering the seed from which other committees will bloom. -- Parkinson

Working...