NASA Advisers Say SpaceX Rocket Technology Could Put Lives at Risk

Megalith

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
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."
 
Last edited:
Keyword here "plans" just like tesla planned to have a car drive by itself last year. Not sure there's anyone sane enough to volunteer to do this.
 
As opposed to the other totally safe methods of rocket powered flight?

No matter how space flight is done, there will always be something that "could put lives at risk". That is why stuff like these plans need a lot of testing before anyone goes "Hey, lets do this all the time". It inevitably will fail at some point and cost lives. That sucks, but every single method anyone will ever propose will have safety concerns and have a lot of potential pitfalls should something go wrong.
 
Eh. the ascent is basically a controlled explosion inside an (expensive) tin can...

I dont doubt the NASA engineer, but rocket launches are full of substantial risks anyway.

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...

Space flight requires an unbelievable level of attentativeness and precision. Honestly it's a miracle NASA's track record is as decent as it is (particularly back then when computers were rather limited).
 
And they themselves have experienced a fuelling blow up when? It happens when they're in flight, I don't think nasa should be drawing attention to themselves in this regard. Also why the hype about when to fuel? They're sending people into the most hostile place you can send a person. These non existent sparks pale against space itself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PaulP
like this
Isn't SpaceX developing that escape pod that's quick enough that even if the whole thing blows up anywhere during fueling and liftoff it can still get everyone to safety?
 
  • Like
Reactions: PaulP
like this
MV75 said:
And they themselves have experienced a fuelling blow up when? It happens when they're in flight, I don't think nasa should be drawing attention to themselves in this regard. Also why the hype about when to fuel? They're sending people into the most hostile place you can send a person. These non existent sparks pale against space itself.
Click to expand...

You're aware of the failure that happened during fueling of a SpaceX rocket last year? This would have to be done AFTER the crew was strapped in.

I did read a piece this morning (can't remember where from) that did look at the push and pull of acceptable safety margins for space flight. On one side, who knows if we'd have been able to do what we did in space in the 60's with today's risk aversion, on the other side, we can never take the astronauts that volunteer to go into harms way for granted.

And yes, the Dragon pod is supposed to be able to conduct an extremely rapid abort from pad, but we're adding greater complexity to the system.

I'm not pretending to have an answer, but these are pretty complex problems. NASA's own history (along with other space agencies) does give them a lot of reason to be gun shy, especially when risk is so difficult to calculate.
 
Not the same NASA that launched the first manned mission of a Saturn V on a trip to lunar orbit on Apollo 8.
 
Right, and which rocket is the one that doesn't pose any risk?
The space shuttle that only blew up twice in its service life thanks to some incredible luck?
 
leathco016 said:
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...

Negligence? The Space Shuttle was, in retrospect, an inherently dangerous and complex vehicle. There's little NASA could have done while keeping the program viable, the costs just kept rising and they flew the hardware they had. The smart thing post-Apollo would have been to keep flying uprated Saturn V's and IBs, but by the 70s there was no longer political pressure to pay for more Moon missions or a Mars program. Congress cut NASA's budget drastically and Nixon killed the Saturn V to give out new contracts to other members of the aerospace industry.

Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush/Obama should have replaced the Shuttle, it was clear after Challenger that not only was it not safe, it was never going to be cost effective. Now that SpaceX is flying reusable heavy lifters I'd rather see NASA focus on science and living in space, let SpaceX and ULA do the lifting.
 
You don't think NASA wouldn't be stating tis because they now have some competition do you? Naw a government department wouldn't think of doing something like that.
 
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
 
Nasa is salty thats all, they haven't done anything worthwhile for so long, they are scared to become irrelevant, yes spaceX put lives at risk the same way boeing puts lives at risk, ppl will most certainly die in spaceX travels, as ppl die in boeing crashes, ford, mercedes.
in the end of the day private sector should take over, they advance much faster than Nasa who is crippled by funding.
 
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.
 
NASA needs STFU nothing is 100% safe lest of all space travel even modern aviation had things happen. you do enough flight at SOME point the odds will catch up with you and you will lose lives it WILL happen but unlike most people getting on 737 these people KNOW the risks of sitting on top of a rocket and willing still do it

and frankly id take my chances with a Falcon 9 even not man rated over ANYTHING the Russians build
 
Quad said:
You don't think NASA wouldn't be stating tis because they now have some competition do you? Naw a government department wouldn't think of doing something like that.
Click to expand...


NASA's job SHOULD BE pushing the limits on things to costly for public sector like going to Mars but NASA has been nothing but pussies for the last 20 years now they lost all the talent that ran the Shuttle and Apollo
 
DeathFromBelow said:
Negligence? The Space Shuttle was, in retrospect, an inherently dangerous and complex vehicle. There's little NASA could have done while keeping the program viable, the costs just kept rising and they flew the hardware they had. The smart thing post-Apollo would have been to keep flying uprated Saturn V's and IBs, but by the 70s there was no longer political pressure to pay for more Moon missions or a Mars program. Congress cut NASA's budget drastically and Nixon killed the Saturn V to give out new contracts to other members of the aerospace industry.
Click to expand...

Nixon killed the Saturn V as part of his personal purge of anything Kennedy related. SS was Nixon's attempt to overtake Kennedy glory.
 
aside from all the other sentiments already stated, I really don't understand this, I mean, on one hand you load the astronauts, then the fuel..... something may happen...oops... on the other hand, you load the fuel, then the astronauts...... again something may happen... oops... (AS HAS HAPPENED IN THE PAST)

like....uh...what? this is space....
 
Oh gawsh sounds serious! We better increase their funding so they can spend even more while they do nothing!
 
MixManSC said:
"NASA Advisers Say SpaceX Rocket Technology Could Put Their Jobs at Risk" ;)
Click to expand...


I don't blame the folks at NASA. Maybe if we (the US) funded the space program a bit more they could do more. But, no, we need more absurdly expensive aircraft carriers, and outlandishly expensive F-35's.
 
Wyodiver said:
And as far as accidents go, NASA never intended for things to go wrong, you ignorant little cunts. Do some research. Your comments denigrate the the men and women who have worked so hard, and sometimes died, for the US space program. Shame on you. Seriously. How fucking dare you?
Click to expand...

whoa there sensitive sally, none of us are attacking the fact that nasa did everything within their power to negate accidents, were pointing out how stupid this argument of theirs is... and its all to stifle the industry because they feel threatened by the advances a commercial entity has been able to make, that a government entity simply cant approach because of all the red tape they are held behind....

also if your comment was /s....then ignore mine
 
gxp500 said:
Keyword here "plans" just like tesla planned to have a car drive by itself last year. Not sure there's anyone sane enough to volunteer to do this.
Click to expand...
You do realize Falcon has over 50 launches and 24 landings, right?
 
Spire3660 said:
You do realize Falcon has over 50 launches and 24 landings, right?
Click to expand...

it really does seem like some people think spacex is some sort of flat earth backyard weekend warrior project by some unknown entity with no cooperation with nasa, riding on the shoulders of nasa, and the things nasa has gleamed over the years..... doesn't t?
 
"contrary to booster safety criteria that has been in place for over 50 years."

May be its time to update the rules. It sounds silly when they want to bring up a 50 year old rule and apply it to every future technology. lol
 
86 5.0L said:
This, lol.

Or they could get hired by Elon :p
Click to expand...

What the hell does he know about space travel? Money doesn't buy you knowledge.

It would be wise to listen to NASA, they've been there. People died, god rest their souls. I'll never forget when Challenger blew up. But those men and women did not die in vein.
 
Krenum said:
It would be wise to listen to NASA, they've been there. People died, god rest their souls. I'll never forget when Challenger blew up. But those men and women did not die in vein.
Click to expand...

They absolutely died in vain. NASA was literally told the day before that the accident was going to happen by the engineers who designed the boosters. NASA ignored every bit of procedure and safety reg to launch Challenger. That shuttle should of never launched that day and anyone who ok'd the launch is guilty of criminal negligence.
 
I said this previously, but near earth orbit garbage reclamation is going to be the industry of the future.
 
aaronspink said:
They absolutely died in vain. NASA was literally told the day before that the accident was going to happen by the engineers who designed the boosters. NASA ignored every bit of procedure and safety reg to launch Challenger. That shuttle should of never launched that day and anyone who ok'd the launch is guilty of criminal negligence.
Click to expand...
According to this thread, Space X should ignore any warnings coming from someone else as well.
 
aaronspink said:
No they used them because they were dirt cheap. Fire sale pricing. Basically giving them away.
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top