A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

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
  #1  
Old May 25th 18, 11:14 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Load and Go

NASA is at least verbally sounding more encouraging about the SpaceX
'Load and Go' launch for manned vehicles. This is good because, while
they could do it the other way, there would be a performance hit due
to the propellants having time to warm up. Block 5 has some extra
performance over Block 4, so there may be some headspace there, but
why give it up?


--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw
  #2  
Old May 26th 18, 01:16 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Greg \(Strider\) Moore
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 752
Default Load and Go

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...

NASA is at least verbally sounding more encouraging about the SpaceX
'Load and Go' launch for manned vehicles. This is good because, while
they could do it the other way, there would be a performance hit due
to the propellants having time to warm up. Block 5 has some extra
performance over Block 4, so there may be some headspace there, but
why give it up?



Yeah, I saw that the other day. I have mixed feelings about it. I think the
performance benefit is nice, but it is one more risk. I think over time
though we'll have enough data points to know exactly how big of a risk. Is
it 1 in 100 or 1 in 1,000,000 sort of thing... Time will tell.

--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net
IT Disaster Response -
https://www.amazon.com/Disaster-Resp...dp/1484221834/

  #3  
Old May 26th 18, 01:46 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Load and Go

"Greg \(Strider\) Moore" wrote on Fri,
25 May 2018 20:16:59 -0400:

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
.. .

NASA is at least verbally sounding more encouraging about the SpaceX
'Load and Go' launch for manned vehicles. This is good because, while
they could do it the other way, there would be a performance hit due
to the propellants having time to warm up. Block 5 has some extra
performance over Block 4, so there may be some headspace there, but
why give it up?


Yeah, I saw that the other day. I have mixed feelings about it. I think the
performance benefit is nice, but it is one more risk. I think over time
though we'll have enough data points to know exactly how big of a risk. Is
it 1 in 100 or 1 in 1,000,000 sort of thing... Time will tell.


I don't consider it a risk any more than doing it the other way.


--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to
live in the real world."
-- Mary Shafer, NASA Dryden
  #4  
Old May 26th 18, 01:46 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Alain Fournier[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 548
Default Load and Go

On May/25/2018 at 8:46 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote :
"Greg \(Strider\) Moore" wrote on Fri,
25 May 2018 20:16:59 -0400:

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...

NASA is at least verbally sounding more encouraging about the SpaceX
'Load and Go' launch for manned vehicles. This is good because, while
they could do it the other way, there would be a performance hit due
to the propellants having time to warm up. Block 5 has some extra
performance over Block 4, so there may be some headspace there, but
why give it up?


Yeah, I saw that the other day. I have mixed feelings about it. I think the
performance benefit is nice, but it is one more risk. I think over time
though we'll have enough data points to know exactly how big of a risk. Is
it 1 in 100 or 1 in 1,000,000 sort of thing... Time will tell.


I wouldn't want to wait until we have enough data points to tell the
risk is 1 in 1,000,000. :-)

I don't consider it a risk any more than doing it the other way.


A SpaceX rocket went kaboom recently while filling the tanks. So there
is a risk with having astronauts on board while fuelling. What extra
risk do you see the other way?


Alain Fournier
  #5  
Old May 26th 18, 03:05 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Load and Go

Alain Fournier wrote on Sat, 26 May 2018
08:46:43 -0400:

On May/25/2018 at 8:46 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote :
"Greg \(Strider\) Moore" wrote on Fri,
25 May 2018 20:16:59 -0400:

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...

NASA is at least verbally sounding more encouraging about the SpaceX
'Load and Go' launch for manned vehicles. This is good because, while
they could do it the other way, there would be a performance hit due
to the propellants having time to warm up. Block 5 has some extra
performance over Block 4, so there may be some headspace there, but
why give it up?


Yeah, I saw that the other day. I have mixed feelings about it. I think the
performance benefit is nice, but it is one more risk. I think over time
though we'll have enough data points to know exactly how big of a risk. Is
it 1 in 100 or 1 in 1,000,000 sort of thing... Time will tell.


I wouldn't want to wait until we have enough data points to tell the
risk is 1 in 1,000,000. :-)


It doesn't take all that many data points.



I don't consider it a risk any more than doing it the other way.


A SpaceX rocket went kaboom recently while filling the tanks. So there
is a risk with having astronauts on board while fuelling. What extra
risk do you see the other way?


Yes, various rockets have gone kaboom for various reasons. The root
cause of the incident you mention has been corrected.


--
"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 08:31 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.