A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Load and Go



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old May 28th 18, 03:34 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,737
Default Load and Go

In article ,
says...

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?


You can Google this yourself. Look for the time-lines of one of the
launches. It's surely called out in the launch videos on YouTube.

It's Memorial Day, so I'm thinking more about my family members who have
served their country.

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).


It gives them a higher fuel load (higher density means higher mass for a
given volume) so the performance is higher. This does allow for more
fuel to land the stage. But that's not really the primary reason.

The primary reason is to keep the crewed launches the same as all the
other launches in the way that the Falcon 9 is fueled, launched, and
flown. When you make things different you introduce the possibility
that there could be an error, anomaly, or other such issue with the
crewed launch because it's the exception, not the rule. In other words,
you could actually be increasing the chance of failure by doing things
different for the crewed flight than for the more numerous uncrewd
flights.


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.


Yes. We don't need any of that activity around a vehicle being loaded
with LOX/kerosene.

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.


In the case of a Falcon 9, the concern is with the LOX (which makes
pretty much anything burn) and helium (extremely high pressure) than
with the kerosene fuel. In fact, fueling of aircraft with kerosene type
fuels with passengers on board is permitted by the FAA. Gasoline type
fuels, on the other hand, is more dangerous, so it's not permitted to
fuel an aircraft with such a fuel with passengers aboard.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
Ads
  #12  
Old May 29th 18, 07:40 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,792
Default Load and Go

JF Mezei wrote on Mon, 28 May 2018
18:46:14 -0400:

On 2018-05-27 22:04, Fred J. McCall wrote:

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?


I'll remember to remind you of the above when you insult me next time
telling me I should look it up on Google.


You're comparing apples and aardvarks and you won't remember it
anyway, Mayfly.


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
  #13  
Old May 29th 18, 11:30 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,737
Default Load and Go

In article ,
says...

On 2018-05-27 22:04, Fred J. McCall wrote:

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?



I'll remember to remind you of the above when you insult me next time
telling me I should look it up on Google.


The difference here was I was asking for a cite to back up an assertion
that has nothing to do with sci.space.policy (i.e. this isn't an
aircraft group). You are constantly asking for basic information which
is topical to sci.space.policy that has already been all over the online
space press. The space news websites aren't hard to find and they're
quite numerous. I follow more than 1/2 a dozen of these sites.

A few sites I quit following because they're too tied into the SLS mafia
and allow trolls to post asinine comments calling Falcon 9 Elon Musk's
"hobby rocket". Yeah, the "hobby rocket" which single handedly
increased the US share of the global launch market to 60! That's not a
"hobby", that's a market disruptor. Facts don't seem to matter to the
SLS mafia anymore than they do to the Musk "fanboys" that think we're
going to Mars in a couple of years on BFR/BFS based on an aspirational
goal set by Elon Musk that anyone with half a brain knows has a small
chance of actually being met.

But I digress. The point is that you're posting questions to
sci.space.policy without doing any basic reading on the topic. It gets
old.

Let me suggest you start with Ars Technica (specifically articles by
Eric Berger) and Parabolic Arc. These sites cover a wide range of space
related topics and have a lot of depth to them as well.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
  #14  
Old May 29th 18, 12:15 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Alain Fournier[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 356
Default Load and Go

On May/29/2018 at 6:30 AM, Jeff Findley wrote :
In article ,
says...

On 2018-05-27 22:04, Fred J. McCall wrote:

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?



I'll remember to remind you of the above when you insult me next time
telling me I should look it up on Google.


The difference here was I was asking for a cite to back up an assertion
that has nothing to do with sci.space.policy (i.e. this isn't an
aircraft group). You are constantly asking for basic information which
is topical to sci.space.policy that has already been all over the online
space press. The space news websites aren't hard to find and they're
quite numerous. I follow more than 1/2 a dozen of these sites.

A few sites I quit following because they're too tied into the SLS mafia
and allow trolls to post asinine comments calling Falcon 9 Elon Musk's
"hobby rocket". Yeah, the "hobby rocket" which single handedly
increased the US share of the global launch market to 60! That's not a
"hobby", that's a market disruptor. Facts don't seem to matter to the
SLS mafia anymore than they do to the Musk "fanboys" that think we're
going to Mars in a couple of years on BFR/BFS based on an aspirational
goal set by Elon Musk that anyone with half a brain knows has a small
chance of actually being met.

But I digress. The point is that you're posting questions to
sci.space.policy without doing any basic reading on the topic. It gets
old.

Let me suggest you start with Ars Technica (specifically articles by
Eric Berger) and Parabolic Arc. These sites cover a wide range of space
related topics and have a lot of depth to them as well.


Personally, I don't mind people asking questions for which the answers
can be easily found. It can bring about some interesting discussions.


Alain Fournier
  #15  
Old May 30th 18, 09:14 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,792
Default Load and Go

Alain Fournier wrote on Tue, 29 May 2018
07:15:04 -0400:

On May/29/2018 at 6:30 AM, Jeff Findley wrote :
In article ,
says...

On 2018-05-27 22:04, Fred J. McCall wrote:

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?


I'll remember to remind you of the above when you insult me next time
telling me I should look it up on Google.


The difference here was I was asking for a cite to back up an assertion
that has nothing to do with sci.space.policy (i.e. this isn't an
aircraft group). You are constantly asking for basic information which
is topical to sci.space.policy that has already been all over the online
space press. The space news websites aren't hard to find and they're
quite numerous. I follow more than 1/2 a dozen of these sites.

A few sites I quit following because they're too tied into the SLS mafia
and allow trolls to post asinine comments calling Falcon 9 Elon Musk's
"hobby rocket". Yeah, the "hobby rocket" which single handedly
increased the US share of the global launch market to 60! That's not a
"hobby", that's a market disruptor. Facts don't seem to matter to the
SLS mafia anymore than they do to the Musk "fanboys" that think we're
going to Mars in a couple of years on BFR/BFS based on an aspirational
goal set by Elon Musk that anyone with half a brain knows has a small
chance of actually being met.

But I digress. The point is that you're posting questions to
sci.space.policy without doing any basic reading on the topic. It gets
old.

Let me suggest you start with Ars Technica (specifically articles by
Eric Berger) and Parabolic Arc. These sites cover a wide range of space
related topics and have a lot of depth to them as well.


Personally, I don't mind people asking questions for which the answers
can be easily found. It can bring about some interesting discussions.


I don't mind some of it but it does get tiresome, particularly when
the 'questions' are essentially arguing with the answers to previous
questions or are predicated on a fantasy view of how physics works.


--
"It's always different. It's always complex. But at some point,
somebody has to draw the line. And that somebody is always me....
I am the law."
-- Buffy, The Vampire Slayer
  #16  
Old May 30th 18, 09:16 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,792
Default Load and Go

JF Mezei wrote on Tue, 29 May 2018
10:44:28 -0400:


I ask questions here bacsue of better quality of answers (once you
remove the insults from McCall).


Get basic physics right and stop arguing with answers you're given and
you'll find you get a lot fewer 'insults' (is it an 'insult' when it's
a true description?).


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




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Why load payload at pad? David Findlay Space Shuttle 14 July 8th 07 08:04 PM
Why does SpaceX load the LOX first? richard schumacher Policy 3 February 17th 06 04:30 PM
RCS Load Simulators LaDonna Wyss History 84 July 9th 04 06:41 PM
Electrical Load Simulators John Maxson History 42 July 9th 04 05:11 AM
SS1 propellant load Ian Policy 42 July 7th 04 02:12 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:35 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.