NASA Advisers Say SpaceX Rocket Technology Could Put Lives at Risk

IcePickFreak said:
According to this thread, Space X should ignore any warnings coming from someone else as well.
Click to expand...

There is a big difference between a warning which is "the booster will fail catastrophically" and "fueling with crew will marginally increase risk"
 
N4CR said:
IIRC yes cheap helped, but they ended up making them domestically, obviously it's a good design..
So not all Russian stuff is junk. Be like me calling American cars junk when you have stuff like the C7 ZL1.
Click to expand...

But they didn't make them domestically. They looked into it, but the price from russia was so cheap that it would of cost more just to setup the manufacturing line than buying them from russia for the 50+ launches. Russia really was fire selling the RD-180. They had a production line setup and a warehouse stuffed with them and nothing to use them with. I'm not saying the RD-180 was a bad engine, it was just so cheap that there really wasn't any viable option.
 
Megalith said:
NASA is, once again, warning about the dangers of SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rockets. Their “load and go” fueling, which involves fuel being loaded just before takeoff, is considered a risk because astronauts would already be onboard during the process. A spark or other accident 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."
Click to expand...

The same exact thing could happen while fueling your car...

Newsflash: fuel is explosive!
 
I think this whole info from them is being sensationalised. They're pointing out something they think is a bad idea. Isn't that their fucking job?

Tesla may or may not adjust. Hell, they may have even found a way to do it safer than NASA. I don't know.

What I do know is this is just advisory. That's it.

Let's not "blow" this out of proportion here...
 
LMT MFA said:
You could say they've learned the hard way, from experience.
Click to expand...

You could certainly say that, and many did after Challenger. And then Columbia happened. Since nobody lost their job either time there's no real evidence that they did learn their lesson. (That is to say, they might have, but we haven't got evidence of it yet.)
 
kju1 said:
The same exact thing could happen while fueling your car...
Click to expand...

To be fair, it's a little more complex than that. The Falcon fuel tank that blew up was a newish design with a composite material wrapped around an inner shell of something else (IIRC). Cryogenic fuel (or oxygen?) leaked into the wrapping and caused the explosion.

SpaceX is convinced they've redesigned the tanks in a way that fixes the problem. It would be nice to see it used a few more times before trusting people. It'd be nice to see results of a whole bunch of tests where they filled up a tank and saw nothing happen, etc., too.
 
All of this is the market working as intended. Competitors call each other out on their respective weaknesses, then either fix them, or balance them with a strength that evens out the risk-benefit calculation for consumers. This is the same thing as Toyota claiming safety, and Dodge saying "Does it have a Hemi?" NASA has experience, and it costs them a $19 million to purchase a toilet. As long as the crew is hopping into the cockpit eyes-wide-open, I'm okay with seeing what SpaceX can do with $19 million.
 
1_rick said:
To be fair, it's a little more complex than that. The Falcon fuel tank that blew up was a newish design with a composite material wrapped around an inner shell of something else (IIRC). Cryogenic fuel (or oxygen?) leaked into the wrapping and caused the explosion.

SpaceX is convinced they've redesigned the tanks in a way that fixes the problem. It would be nice to see it used a few more times before trusting people. It'd be nice to see results of a whole bunch of tests where they filled up a tank and saw nothing happen, etc., too.
Click to expand...


Sure but as it worded its a no shit Sherlock statement (sparks can cause explosions with fuel involved). The bottom line is that NASA has become risk adverse to the point where it has crippled them. They are requiring everyone else to adhere to a 1 in 270 risk of death odds when the shuttle was 1 in 12.

NASA needs to let go and stop being obstructionist and start trying to HELP. How about instead of just saying "hey its risky to not do it the way we have done it for 50 years", which sounds like a "this is the way we have always done it so...", they do "Well if you do that it increases risk by x%, but we think you could do it this way AND accomplish your goal..."

All I see now from NASA is how not to do things...
 
  • Like
Reactions: PaulP
like this
Err i would get on the dam thing even if it had a 1/10 chance of blowing up
 
XenIneX said:
An anti-SpaceX hatchet job article based around an 18-month old advisory letter that someone dredged up to re-litigate the "dangers" of NewSpace. I wonder who might want that.

First quote in article that they didn't have to blow the dust off of, courtesy of:
John Mulholland, Boeing Vice President and Program Manager for the Commercial Crew Program


hmm-emoji.gif
Click to expand...


LOL yep.

also, from the article

The proposal has raised alarms for members of Congress
Click to expand...

'i bet it has since their sacred cow of a launch system is looking like a poorer choice as the days go by. gotta keep the funding for those jobs in their states.
 
workshop35 said:
How much experience does SpaceX have launching manned flights? Oh yeah, ZERO. They would be wise listening to those who learned from doing it the hard way.
Click to expand...

Right, because only NASA has that experience, and it is impossible to hire anyone that has experience? Those kind of statements are always full of crap.
 
NoOther said:
Right, because only NASA has that experience, and it is impossible to hire anyone that has experience? Those kind of statements are always full of crap.
Click to expand...


the really sad part of that is that currently not even NASA has manned flight experience.. only russia and china


NASA hasnt launched a person into space since the shuttle ended.

hahahaha

oh.. wait.. thats not all that funny

:>(
 
katanaD said:
the really sad part of that is that currently not even NASA has manned flight experience.. only russia and china
Click to expand...

What is really sad is people are forgetting that NASA is the one paying for SpaceX to take NASA astronauts to space. NASA is not the one against SpaceX here, it is merely the advisers who are too risk adverse, which is why they are currently relying on everyone else to take them. I mean are we really considering Russians to be that much safer?
 
NoOther said:
What is really sad is people are forgetting that NASA is the one paying for SpaceX to take NASA astronauts to space. NASA is not the one against SpaceX here, it is merely the advisers who are too risk adverse, which is why they are currently relying on everyone else to take them. I mean are we really considering Russians to be that much safer?
Click to expand...

I always make this joke also but the reality of the situation is that YES the Russians are really damn good at rockets. The Soyuz is arguably one of the most reliable rockets out there when you consider its long operational history. I think it has something like a 98% success rate...
 
Why is this dog being trotted out again? As many pointed out when this concern was first raised, if you fuel first then board, you are not only exposing the flight crew but also the ground personnel to the risks of an explosion - with no way to escape. If you board the crew first, and then evacuate the ground crew before you start fueling, then you are only risking the flight crew - and they have a tested escape system that can pull them out if the booster blows up. Note that the Space Shuttle had no escape system for such a situation.
 
IF they are developing an escape pod that can launch them to safety from "zero-zero" on the launchpad then I'd think that technically even if they have to fuel with the people on board for practical reasons, that's still likely far more safe on the odds than NASA craft ever were with NO means of escape. A pod that can separate and fly away provides safety on the pad and all the way into and from orbit.

I don't have a problem with NASA per say but they need to offer a constructive solution rather than simply stating the problem.

Because yes, rocket launches are dangerous. Period.
 
leathco016 said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spaceflight-related_accidents_and_incidents

Coming from the same organization that killed everyone onboard Columbia and Challenger due to negligence, I don't really take a lot of weight from their words on safety.
Click to expand...

Was going to say exactly this... Also the point they made about "contrary to booster safety criteria that has been in place for over 50 years." Well, maybe it's time to update your shit? Let's not forget there are forces at work to sabotage the success of SpaceX. Everyone needs to stay aware of what is going on. Also, if there is a spark or something then they could just you know... do this...


 
  • Like
Reactions: Elios
like this
PaulP said:
As many pointed out when this concern was first raised, if you fuel first then board, you are not only exposing the flight crew but also the ground personnel to the risks of an explosion - with no way to escape. If you board the crew first, and then evacuate the ground crew before you start fueling, then you are only risking the flight crew - and they have a tested escape system that can pull them out if the booster blows up. Note that the Space Shuttle had no escape system for such a situation.
Click to expand...

The other thing that is so baffling is that they're worried about the fueling procedure - something that can be tested, ON THE GROUND, multiple times, with many different scenarios, and with the ability to disassemble and validate the parts after each load cycle. And they could do these tests for a very small cost, SpaceX will be landing used Block 5 boosters that they could load and reload ad infinitum. I doubt SpaceX's ground crew is doing that much between launches, they could take a pre-flown booster and fill it every day for months if NASA is that worried about it. Hell, every time SpaceX loads propellant into a Block 5 for the pre-flight test fire, NASA could ask for a couple more test loads, it would be so damn easy to get a dependable baseline of how often a Falcon 9 has problems during propellant loading.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Elios
like this
NoOther said:
Right, because only NASA has that experience, and it is impossible to hire anyone that has experience? Those kind of statements are always full of crap.
Click to expand...
hiring people with experience has nothing to do with not listening to what should be considered experts in the field. You'd be full of crap to NOT listen to those who came before you like so many people in this thread seem to be advocating for
 
workshop35 said:
hiring people with experience has nothing to do with not listening to what should be considered experts in the field. You'd be full of crap to NOT listen to those who came before you like so many people in this thread seem to be advocating for
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how NASA's expertise at booking flights on Russian Soyuz launches makes them the 'experts in the field' of manned space flight.

It's been 7 years since the last Shuttle flight. That's an eternity in this world, those staff have all moved on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PaulP
like this
workshop35 said:
hiring people with experience has nothing to do with not listening to what should be considered experts in the field. You'd be full of crap to NOT listen to those who came before you like so many people in this thread seem to be advocating for
Click to expand...

Having "experience" is not the same as knowing what you are doing. Too many people use the bullshit cop out of saying someone doesn't have "experience" with this or that so they obviously can't know what they are doing. That is simple and utter bullshit everytime it is applied. Experience is not the same as knowing how to do something. Nor is it the same as knowing what one should do. Experience does help teach us lessons, but it isn't the end all and be all of knowledge.

Second, hiring people with experience is exactly what you do when you want to have advice on a subject. You are basically saying that they should not listen to their own people with experience because someone else has experience. WTF sense does that make?

Third, as pointed out by DeathFromBelow NASA has primarily been using other people to do all the heavy lifting, including SpaceX. So NASA is leaning on SpaceX's knowledge and experience to get the job done for the future.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PaulP
like this
aaronspink said:
There is a big difference between a warning which is "the booster will fail catastrophically" and "fueling with crew will marginally increase risk"
Click to expand...
Yup, it's marginal right up until it happens. Just like every computer is totally secure, right up until it's security is compromised.
 
IcePickFreak said:
Yup, it's marginal right up until it happens. Just like every computer is totally secure, right up until it's security is compromised.
Click to expand...

Actually it is still marginal when it happens. Don't confuse statistical probability with occurrences.
 
NoOther said:
Having "experience" is not the same as knowing what you are doing. Too many people use the bullshit cop out of saying someone doesn't have "experience" with this or that so they obviously can't know what they are doing. That is simple and utter bullshit everytime it is applied. Experience is not the same as knowing how to do something. Nor is it the same as knowing what one should do. Experience does help teach us lessons, but it isn't the end all and be all of knowledge.

Second, hiring people with experience is exactly what you do when you want to have advice on a subject. You are basically saying that they should not listen to their own people with experience because someone else has experience. WTF sense does that make?

Third, as pointed out by DeathFromBelow NASA has primarily been using other people to do all the heavy lifting, including SpaceX. So NASA is leaning on SpaceX's knowledge and experience to get the job done for the future.
Click to expand...


How do you think you "know what you are doing"? You DO it. Reading articles on the internet doesn't make you a aerospace engineer. You spend years working on projects, starting out with minor design details and working into more complicated systems and higher levels of responsibility. You don't get to know what you are doing without the experience. If you don't know what you're doing in this industry you don't last. Either people won't buy your products or you won't be placed in positions that allow you to make bad calls. And if you make several bad calls you're done, you don't get to touch the stuff that goes boom anymore. Trust me, I've seen it because I worked with this stuff until about a year ago.

Just because you hire some people with experience doesn't mean you have a monopoly on all the good ideas. Did you read the article? There's some very senior people making these recommendations on a policy that's been in place for ~50 years. It's a give and take, you weigh what your people say vs what the advisory committee says.

And NASA isn't leaning on SpaceX manned space flight experience because they haven't done it before. The entire point of what I was saying earlier is that you would be wise not to discount the advice of those who came before you. If you come up with a new way of doing things that is safe and the policy can change, go for it. But when it comes to manned flight you can't be arrogant and just think you know better. SpaceX already blew up a launch vehicle on the pad while fueling....
 
workshop35 said:
How do you think you "know what you are doing"? You DO it.
Click to expand...

Again, simply wrong. Most of the time you have to 'know' what you are doing before you do it. Most spaceflight is stuff they 'knew' about before they did it, simply because there really aren't any second chances in space. So its a full stop for you right there. You can continue to try and respond with your bullshit, but it's obvious from your answers so far that you are really far off base on this one.

Also, as far as the article, did you read it? The entire article was pretty much saying how NASA is too risk adverse now to advance which is why they are leaning on other people to send their astronauts to space... So really that whole 50 years experience crap is just more bullshit. The truth is they are too scared to do anything anymore.
 
NoOther said:
Again, simply wrong. Most of the time you have to 'know' what you are doing before you do it. Most spaceflight is stuff they 'knew' about before they did it, simply because there really aren't any second chances in space. So its a full stop for you right there. You can continue to try and respond with your bullshit, but it's obvious from your answers so far that you are really far off base on this one.
Click to expand...
you literally just agreed with what I said there, read the two sentences after the one you quoted. I don't get why this is such a sticking point for you
 
Advil said:
IF they are developing an escape pod that can launch them to safety from "zero-zero" on the launchpad then I'd think that technically even if they have to fuel with the people on board for practical reasons, that's still likely far more safe on the odds than NASA craft ever were with NO means of escape.
Click to expand...

Dragon is designed to do that and has had at least one successful test so far (edit: someone's already posted video above, I didn't see that when I made this comment). (Maybe more--I haven't been following.)
 
I didn't know rockets and space travel being potentially dangerous was a secret up until now.
 
IcePickFreak said:
:cautious: Uhhh OK. Unfortunately I'm only familiar with Meriam-Webster & Oxford definitions, not yours.
Click to expand...

Mine is the same as Meriam-Webster. You said if an accident happens it is no longer marginal, that isn't what marginal means... Marginal means its an outlying chance. Chance does not change based on if something happens, if something happens then it happened within those chances or margins. It is still marginal.
 
I just don't think there is any way to make sitting on top of 550 tonnes of explosive fuel-oxygen mixture safe...

Space travel inherently involves risks, and after Challenger and Columbia NASA should be well aware of this.
 
NoOther said:
Mine is the same as Meriam-Webster. You said if an accident happens it is no longer marginal, that isn't what marginal means... Marginal means its an outlying chance. Chance does not change based on if something happens, if something happens then it happened within those chances or margins. It is still marginal.
Click to expand...

You are correct, but if something is as simple as embarking the crew after fueling eliminates that marginal risk, why not do it?

There are two key factors to analyzing risk, frequency and severity. This would be a marginal frequency, high severity (death of all on board) risk.
 
leathco016 said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spaceflight-related_accidents_and_incidents

Coming from the same organization that killed everyone onboard Columbia and Challenger due to negligence, I don't really take a lot of weight from their words on safety.
Click to expand...

I forget which incident but one of the major accidents was due to the frost and the temperature being too cold outside. NASA engineers warned that it was an unsafe launch but the NASA upper management forced them to agree to the launch to keep their clients happy.

Not that I am disagreeing with you or anything. But there is more than what meets the eye.
 
DTN107 said:
I forget which incident but one of the major accidents was due to the frost and the temperature being too cold outside. NASA engineers warned that it was an unsafe launch but the NASA upper management forced them to agree to the launch to keep their clients happy.
Click to expand...

There were multiple investigations into why Challenger failed. The potential issues with the SRB joint that ended up failing had been declared an acceptable flight risk during production (partially because some information was withheld by the manufacturer), eventual SRB upgrades were planned to further mitigate the risks. When NASA gave the go to launch Challenger that day they believed they were operating within their safety margins even with the low temperatures that morning.

The Shuttle was an inherently dangerous vehicle forced upon NASA by political forces during the post-Apollo era.

Aireoth said:
You are correct, but if something is as simple as embarking the crew after fueling eliminates that marginal risk, why not do it?

There are two key factors to analyzing risk, frequency and severity. This would be a marginal frequency, high severity (death of all on board) risk.
Click to expand...

SpaceX has abort options for the crew on the pad and during the ascent. The abort procedure for Shuttle crews on the pad and during most of the ascent was to kiss your ass goodbye...

This complaining about fueling sounds like desperation. NASA is rapidly losing justification for spending billions of dollars on the Space Launch System now that SpaceX has demonstrated reusable heavy lift.
 
SpaceX wants to load flight crew (astronauts), clear the launch area of ground crew, arm the Launch Escape System, fuel and go.

If something goes wrong while fueling, and it's sudden, LES gets them out of harm's way. If it's just a regular hiccup they can detank at leisure and then if necessary unload the crew safely with the rocket not fueled. If it's somewhere in-between they have escape baskets like the Shuttle did (which was the ONLY way to get off the shuttle in a hurry at the pad, there was no LES for shuttle) but realistically I don't see a scenario where they would be used versus regular exiting or LES, they're there because NASA wants them because NASA wants to do things the NASA way.

NASA wants them to fuel, then have flight crew and ground crew approach the FULLY FUELED VEHICLE and get on board, etc, then go.

Putting aside that this doesn't work well with the superchilled propellants that SpaceX uses to get higher performance from their vehicles (as the prop is warming the entire time it's in the tanks and if it warms too much they'll potentially not be able to go to orbit without starting over with fresh prop load)...

NASA way, approaching the fueled vehicle with flight and ground crew, is far more dangerous than doing so empty. SpaceX way the entire time in which there might be any danger it is only the flight crew, not the ground crew in danger, and the LES can save them if necessary. Fewer lives in danger the SpaceX way.

And all the mentions of AMOS-6 failure on the pad during prep for static fire testing :

1) This was caused by different loading procedures exposing a corner case flaw in the design
2) They have since fixed the flaw and changed loading procedures both to avoid it
3) Static fires are always done first to ensure everything on the vehicle works as expected before anyone is on board

The LES for Crew Dragon could have both saved AMOS-6 and CRS-7 type failures, as well as actual explosion on the pad or in the air (AMOS-6 was more of a slow fireball compared to some rocket explosions, and CRS-7 came apart due to faulty structural bits letting go - solved by more rigorous testing, and bringing the parts in-house, since the supplier done goofed)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top