JF Mezei wrote on Sun, 27 May 2018
18:00:45 -0400:

On 2018-05-26 21:16, Jeff Findley wrote:

No. SpaceX cools the LOX almost to the point where it would start to
become solid. They call it "sub-cooled".


thanks. Knew about kerosene being cooled, didn't realize they did that
to LOX too.

How long does SpaceX take to load rocket with both LOX and kerosene? And
how long before launch does SpaceX expect crews to be strapped in, hatch
closed?

The "conflict" may exist because SpaceX wants the extra "cold"
performance to raise odds of successful landing whereas NASA isn't
inteested in that part, only interested in getting crew to ISS. (which I
assume is not straining performance and may not require the "extra cold"
fuel. (I have no data on this, just theory/speculation).


Well, NASA kind of cares, since it affects the price they get charged.


You raised ground crew safety. There is a corollary to this: it is safer
to have a rocket being fueled with no activity near pad, no equipment
moving, no motors starting/stoppiong, no cars/trucks etc. So it isn't
just the lived of ground crews, but also not having them there likely
reduces risks of things going kablouee.

Note: comemrcial aircraft have various restrictions on fueling aircraft
when there are passengers on-board vs boarding/deplaning vs empty. (and
these vary depending on fuel being used).

Cite?


Google FAA aircraft refueling regulations.


Do you know what a request for a cite to back up your claims means. I
can tell you what it does NOT mean. It does NOT mean telling someone
to go google something. Care to try again?


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn