TMC is an independent, primarily volunteer organization that relies on ad revenue to cover its operating costs. Please consider whitelisting TMC on your ad blocker and becoming a Supporting Member. For more info: Support TMC

SpaceX FUD: true or false

Discussion in 'SpaceX' started by ggr, May 5, 2018.

  1. ggr

    ggr Roadster R80 537, SigS P85 29, M3P 80k

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2011
    Messages:
    5,240
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
  2. Electroman

    Electroman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2012
    Messages:
    5,485
    Location:
    TX
    One of the guys quoted in that article raising alarm, manages the NASA contract for Boeing. Enuff said !!
     
  3. HVM

    HVM Savolainen

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2012
    Messages:
    605
    Location:
    Finland
    And in "Blue Origin Magazine", also if you load crew first, LAS is usable for whole time...
     
  4. oneday

    oneday Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2014
    Messages:
    1,070
    Location:
    Bay Area
    Definitely regurgitating 1.5 yr old information, discussions and drama.

    The fault analysis from the Amos-6 explosion identified a root cause. Using that information, SpaceX changed its load procedure so that particular failure could in no way be replicated.

    The problem with that article is they made no mention of that. The article didn’t identify the cause of the Amos-6 failure, it didn’t mention that SpaceX along with NASA identified the cause and corrected it.

    Even with the new COPV design they still don’t use liquid helium out of an abundance of caution.
     
    • Informative x 1
  5. ecarfan

    ecarfan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2013
    Messages:
    17,013
    Location:
    San Mateo, CA
    While the article does contain some factual information, it leaves out critical pieces of data and overall fails to present a balanced view of the topic. As is often the case, the headline sensationalizes the topic, which is deliberately done to draw in readers.

    Of course Boeing (ULA) wants to spread SpaceX FUD, and gullible Congresspeople will eat it up.But I think most NASA administrators know better. NASA needs two successful CCT programs.

    I laugh every time I think about the fact that SpaceX volunteered to do an in-flight abort test and ULA is doing their abort test on the pad.
     
    • Like x 2
  6. NCAviator

    NCAviator Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2017
    Messages:
    65
    Location:
    North Carolina
    What is different from what SpaceX is doing and what NASA did with the redstone, atlas, titan, and Saturn rockets? My memory is they all kept fueling LOX right up to launch.
     
  7. Nikxice

    Nikxice Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2014
    Messages:
    704
    Location:
    Hudson, NH
    The fueling differences are highlighted in this letter I linked back in March.

    I suppose it could be argued that by omission of some details the Washington Post article contains FUD. Just speculating, the article could have been edited to fit the page. The author invites emails, could ask him specifics. I don't see factual errors in the article. I think it all boils down to these two quotes from NASA officials, "the agency had not decided whether it would allow SpaceX to load crews before loading the fuel, but he did not rule it out." Also, "the agency is in deep discussions with SpaceX about the safest way to go." Hopefully there will be a resolution soon in SpaceX's favor.
     
  8. Electroman

    Electroman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2012
    Messages:
    5,485
    Location:
    TX
    I think we should follow the most risk averse and safest approach. An approach that will give you 100% safety, better than any transportation.

    Australia has 100% safety record in manned space flights. Kenya, Tanzania, the whole of Africa, and South America. Zero deaths. Better than anything NASA or Russians did. And that safety record didn't come by being a cowboy and cutting corners, like SpaceX.
     
    • Funny x 6
    • Informative x 1
  9. Grendal

    Grendal SpaceX Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2012
    Messages:
    4,620
    Location:
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    The goal of this article is not to prevent SpaceX from participating or launching astronauts but to spread enough FUD to generate enough extra bureaucratic safety checks to cause a delay in a launch with astronauts. This is evidenced by just asking the question of what would come of this. If SpaceX is delayed by even a few months then Boeing can complete their capsule first and launch first. That would be a big publicity coup for them. Anything they can do to prevent SpaceX from garnering even more positive publicity is a win.

    That's my guess about this.

    Which SpaceX already did awesomely in 2015.

     
    • Like x 4
    • Love x 1
  10. pilotSteve

    pilotSteve Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2012
    Messages:
    1,165
    Location:
    Vancouver WA
    THAT is one wild ride! Whoa
     
    • Like x 2
  11. oneday

    oneday Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2014
    Messages:
    1,070
    Location:
    Bay Area
    I’d ride it!!!
     
    • Like x 2
  12. HVM

    HVM Savolainen

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2012
    Messages:
    605
    Location:
    Finland
    Michael Baylor‏ @nextspaceflight

    "Mid to late April 2019 for the Orion Ascent Abort test according to the [Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel] ASAP meeting going on now. No changes there."

    "ASAP believes that load-and-go with the Falcon 9 carrying crew may be a viable option. Notes that the COPV concerns have to be addressed either way."

     
    • Informative x 2
  13. bxr140

    bxr140 Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,611
    Location:
    Bay Area
    You realize that perspective is more FUD, right?
     
  14. Electroman

    Electroman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2012
    Messages:
    5,485
    Location:
    TX
    Why? SpaceX can afford to do an inflight test. They can afford to throw away a rocket what with 15 'flight-tested' boosters in their storage.
     
  15. bxr140

    bxr140 Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,611
    Location:
    Bay Area
    For the same reason it is FUD to trump up spacex’s ‘dangerous’ propellant.
     
    • Like x 1
  16. Brovane

    Brovane Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2016
    Messages:
    207
    Location:
    Orange County, CA
    SpaceX did put NASA in a hard spot with the fueling procedure because it doesn't go against 50+ years of history of manned spaceflight.

    By retaining the ability to fly the F9 without super-cooled propellant SpaceX has given NASA the choice.

    #1- Either fly with the normal process of astronauts load and then the F9 is fueled.

    #2- Or fly with the process of not using super-cooled propellant and the astronauts load after the rocket is fueled.

    NASA's knows that option #2 isn't a good choice because they would be using a different fueling procedure than the rest of SpaceX's launches. This introduces a whole new set of possibilities for things to go wrong because SpaceX would be dramatically changing a critical launch process for just 1-2 launches a year. Despite all the noise made by certain groups about the fueling process, NASA knows the safest process is #1.

    It also looks like SpaceX really made a effort to prove to NASA that the design changes in block-5 for the COPV will prevent a repeat of AMOS-6. SpaceX was also smart by not backing itself into the corner about using super-cooled propellant by retaining the option to not use super-cooled propellant if NASA still demanded the fueling of the rocket before the astronaut load.
     
  17. Electroman

    Electroman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2012
    Messages:
    5,485
    Location:
    TX
    The best option is actually do a test: Induce a RUD while it is 80% fueled and trigger the escape pod and see how the dummies fair in those situations. Or induce a RUD some 10 miles above and 5 miles down range.

    You need to build a test launch site for that.
     
  18. Grendal

    Grendal SpaceX Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2012
    Messages:
    4,620
    Location:
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    Firing off the abort system at Max-Q in a launch is a simulation of a RUD at the worst possible moment. That test is coming toward the end of the year. The abort test they've already done is a simulation of a RUD on the pad.

    As I argued elsewhere, you can plan for a repeat of what has happened in the past and something new will pop up and cause a RUD for something you had not planned. So you come up with a system that works under circumstances you haven't planned for. SpaceX's abort system is pretty comprehensive for almost any RUD scenario. The only thing against it is that it is a new system. SpaceX has had a very good track record since the COPV anomaly. We're at 27 successful load and go launches. 28 tomorrow. If NASA forces a change then it will be for political reasons, not for safety reasons.
     
    • Like x 2
    • Informative x 1
  19. ggr

    ggr Roadster R80 537, SigS P85 29, M3P 80k

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2011
    Messages:
    5,240
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    I have a feeling that having the Dragon leave the rest of the Falcon at MaxQ might induce a RUD anyway... suddenly having a hollow blunt end at just over Mach 1 couldn't be much fun for the boosters.
     
    • Like x 2
  20. ecarfan

    ecarfan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2013
    Messages:
    17,013
    Location:
    San Mateo, CA
    That may well be true, but since the Dragon will have separated itself from the rocket and be moving away it won’t matter if the rocket has a RUD.

    What amazes me is that the Super Dracos can push the Dragon away from the F9 while it is moving at well over Mach 1 during the period of Max Q. As soon as the Dragon separates it is no longer being propelled by the 9 Merlin engines, it’s on it’s own and would decelerate dramatically of course if it wasn’t for the Super Dracos kicking in near instantaneously.

    It’s a technological accomplishment that blows my mind. :confused:
     
    • Like x 1

Share This Page

  • About Us

    Formed in 2006, Tesla Motors Club (TMC) was the first independent online Tesla community. Today it remains the largest and most dynamic community of Tesla enthusiasts. Learn more.
  • Do you value your experience at TMC? Consider becoming a Supporting Member of Tesla Motors Club. As a thank you for your contribution, you'll get nearly no ads in the Community and Groups sections. Additional perks are available depending on the level of contribution. Please visit the Account Upgrades page for more details.


    SUPPORT TMC