Commercial Crew Schedule Analysis

[yg1968]

It seems NASA isn't looking at buying extra Soyus seats:
http://spaceflightnow.com/2016/10/13/nasa-has-no-plans-to-buy-more-soyuz-seats-and-it-may-be-too-late-anyway/

[Brovane]

Looks like the propellant load before or after the crew is loaded is still a hot topic.

Will NASA tell SpaceX, no fueling with astronauts on-board the F9?

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-space-spacex-idUSKBN12W4S8?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=Social

A group of space industry experts that advises NASA has told the U.S. space agency there are safety risks in a proposal by Elon Musk's SpaceX to fuel its rockets while astronauts are on board.

"This is a hazardous operation," Space Station Advisory Committee Chairman Thomas Stafford, a former NASA astronaut and retired Air Force general, said during a conference call on Monday.

Stafford said the group's concerns were heightened after an explosion of an unmanned SpaceX rocket while it was being fueled on Sept. 1.

The causes of that explosion are still under investigation.

Members of the eight-member group, which includes veterans of NASA's Gemini, Apollo and space shuttle programs noted that all previous rockets that have flown people into space were fueled before astronauts got to the launch pad.

"It was unanimous ... Everybody there, and particularly the people who had experience over the years, said nobody is ever near the pad when they fuel a booster,” Stafford said, referring to an earlier briefing the group had about SpaceX's proposed fueling procedure.

SpaceX needs NASA approval of its launch system before it can put astronauts into space.

In an email to Reuters sent late Monday, SpaceX said its fueling system and launch processes will be re-evaluated pending the results of the accident investigation.

SpaceX uses extremely cold liquid propellants loaded just prior to blastoff to increase the rocket's power so it can fly back to Earth and be reused.

“As needed, any additional controls will be put in place to ensure crew safety, from the moment the astronauts reach the pad, through fueling, launch, and spaceflight, and until they are brought safely home,” SpaceX said.

SpaceX said Friday that it believes a fueling system issue caused a pressurized container of helium inside the rocket’s upper stage to burst on Sept. 1, triggering a fireball that destroyed the booster and a $200 million Israeli communications satellite it was to carry into orbit two days later.

SpaceX’s passenger spaceships, which are expected to begin flying in 2018, will be outfitted with an emergency escape system that can fly the capsule away from a failing rocket before or during launch.

NASA hired SpaceX and Boeing Co to fly crews to the space station after the shuttles were retired in 2011. Since then, astronauts have been flying on Russian Soyuz capsules, at a cost of more than $70 million per person.

(Reporting by Irene Klotz; Editing by David Gregorio)

[Negan]

Looks like the propellant load before or after the crew is loaded is still a hot topic.

Will NASA tell SpaceX, no fueling with astronauts on-board the F9?

IMO Yes. They lost that battle on 9/1.

[Khadgars]

Even is SpaceX slips DM-1 to late 2017 (which is probably likely) they could possibly get certified by mid-2018 (if nothing goes wrong with either demo flight).  I don't understand how NASA could hold off on buying more Soyuz seats unless they really expect SpaceX to be certified before Boeing.  You can't count on flying an actual crew rotation mission in December when the first test flight of the vehicle is in June.

Why do you say that? 

June 2018 - Unmanned Test
August 2018 - 1st manned test
December 2018 - 1st operational flight

I imagine SpaceX is about 4-6 months ahead of this schedule even with anticipated delays.

[Khadgars]

Looks like the propellant load before or after the crew is loaded is still a hot topic.

Will NASA tell SpaceX, no fueling with astronauts on-board the F9?

IMO Yes. They lost that battle on 9/1.

Does that imply that SpaceX will not be able to use super cooled propellants, and thus remove the possibility of returning boosters on these missions?

[Brovane]

Looks like the propellant load before or after the crew is loaded is still a hot topic.

Will NASA tell SpaceX, no fueling with astronauts on-board the F9?

IMO Yes. They lost that battle on 9/1.

Does that imply that SpaceX will not be able to use super cooled propellants, and thus remove the possibility of returning boosters on these missions?

I would say a barge landing would still be possible but a RTLS would not be possible without densified propellants.  However it all depends on the launch Mass of the DragonV2 with crew. 

[guckyfan]

Using a different launch procedure for crew is just too dangerous IMO. It is an invitation to failure. With not just any LES, but SuperDraco that are designed for powered landing and the required safety limits for that there is no point in not trusting the LES.

NASA will come around in the end.

[Khadgars]

Using a different launch procedure for crew is just too dangerous IMO. It is an invitation to failure. With not just any LES, but SuperDraco that are designed for powered landing and the required safety limits for that there is no point in not trusting the LES.

NASA will come around in the end.

I kinda disagree.  Why add an additional risk when it's not really required?  Using LES in such an event by no means guarantees the safety of the crew.

[Negan]

Using a different launch procedure for crew is just too dangerous IMO. It is an invitation to failure.

It really shouldn't be, but yes we are talking about SpaceX here. Luckily there's Starliner.

[docmordrid]

Load props after crew load and you only have 4-5 people at risk, all strapped into a TPS covered vehicle just looking for a reason to bug out and with the means to do so.

Load props first and you have 2-3 times as many people within 2 meters of a potential boomski and most have no way out if it's a fast event. Zip line? Puh-lease.

I'll take door #1.

[Brovane]

Load props after crew load and you only have 4-5 people at risk, all strapped into a TPS covered vehicle just looking for a reason to bug out and with the means to do so.

Load props first and you have 2-3 times as many people within 2 meters of a potential boomski and most have no way out if it's a fast event. Zip line? Puh-lease.

I'll take door #1.

For some reason loading propellants first has been the established standard for decades.  Not saying just because it has been done this way for decades is a good reason to continue doing it the same way.   

So is the push back against loading propellants after the astronauts are loaded just institutional inertia on the part of NASA?  Or is there another reason that isn't apparent to us outside the industry? 

[savuporo]

Just how many rockets have blown up on the pad after propellant loading complete?

[Tev]

Looks like the propellant load before or after the crew is loaded is still a hot topic.

Will NASA tell SpaceX, no fueling with astronauts on-board the F9?

IMO Yes. They lost that battle on 9/1.

What? Isn't 9/1 actually argument for loading props AFTER everybody is away from the kaboom machine, and astronauts in capsule with LAS ready?

Using a different launch procedure for crew is just too dangerous IMO. It is an invitation to failure. With not just any LES, but SuperDraco that are designed for powered landing and the required safety limits for that there is no point in not trusting the LES.

NASA will come around in the end.

I kinda disagree.  Why add an additional risk when it's not really required?  Using LES in such an event by no means guarantees the safety of the crew.

If I understand you correctly, you assume the rocket is unlikely to go boom between completing prop load and start of the launch sequence, less so than something going wrong in the case of LES event.

Why? Sept. event showed that even in historically "safe" procedures there's still plenty of risk, especially for this relatively young, envelope pushing company, so there still might be some surprises . . . but which parts of LES event are more failure-prone than the (apparently) fragile rocket?

[Welsh Dragon]

Looks like the propellant load before or after the crew is loaded is still a hot topic.

Will NASA tell SpaceX, no fueling with astronauts on-board the F9?

IMO Yes. They lost that battle on 9/1.

I can't think of anything in particular that happened re SpaceX in January. Do you mean this year? What are you referring to?

[b0objunior]

Looks like the propellant load before or after the crew is loaded is still a hot topic.

Will NASA tell SpaceX, no fueling with astronauts on-board the F9?

IMO Yes. They lost that battle on 9/1.

I can't think of anything in particular that happened re SpaceX in January. Do you mean this year? What are you referring to?

I'm not sure if you are sarcastic or what?

[Welsh Dragon]

Looks like the propellant load before or after the crew is loaded is still a hot topic.

Will NASA tell SpaceX, no fueling with astronauts on-board the F9?

IMO Yes. They lost that battle on 9/1.

I can't think of anything in particular that happened re SpaceX in January. Do you mean this year? What are you referring to?

I'm not sure if you are sarcastic or what?

? How does sarcasm come into this? What event happened on the 9th of January? I genuinely can't think of anything. Am I missing something obvious?

EDIT: ah, hang on, caught out again by crazy American date notation. Amos 6 RUD it is.... I do wish people would use sensible date notations on an international forum.

[Thorny]

EDIT: ah, hang on, caught out again by crazy American date notation. Amos 6 RUD it is.... I do wish people would use sensible date notations on an international forum.

When you tell someone your birthday, do you tell them your birthday is January 9th or 9th January?
If you say "January 9th" like most people do, then the numeric should be 1/9, not 9/1.

[Brovane]

EDIT: ah, hang on, caught out again by crazy American date notation. Amos 6 RUD it is.... I do wish people would use sensible date notations on an international forum.

When you tell someone your birthday, do you tell them your birthday is January 9th or 9th January?
If you say "January 9th" like most people do, then the numeric should be 1/9, not 9/1.

Let's move past the date format discussion and get back to discussing Commercial Crew.   

[Negan]

LES is a system of last resort. I highly doubt it will play into NASA's decision. History on the other hand very well might and history after 9/1 changed dramatically.

[Welsh Dragon]

EDIT: ah, hang on, caught out again by crazy American date notation. Amos 6 RUD it is.... I do wish people would use sensible date notations on an international forum.

When you tell someone your birthday, do you tell them your birthday is January 9th or 9th January?
If you say "January 9th" like most people do, then the numeric should be 1/9, not 9/1.

Like everyone else around here in the UK, the latter. But let's not get into this debate. Only thing to say is that people should use unambiguous date formats.