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
  #8  
Old May 27th 18, 02:16 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,307
Default Load and Go

In article ,
says...

On 2018-05-25 20:46, Fred J. McCall wrote:

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


From a performance point of view, isn't SpaceX concerned about having
the kerosene fuel as cold as possible? (aka: loaded only at last minute)

Doesn't LOX remain cold naturally once loaded and the only concern to
have it constantly refilled as some of it boils out?


No. SpaceX cools the LOX almost to the point where it would start to
become solid. They call it "sub-cooled". So if you load it and let it
sit, it warms up to the point that it's at the boiling point of LOX
instead of the much colder "sub-cooled" temperature. As you know from
physics, the colder it gets the more dense it gets. So, they can load
more LOX into the vehicle when it's sub-cooled than when it's at its
boiling point.

They also cool the kerosene for the same reasons. But I'd imagine the
LOX is going to heat up faster because conduction of heat depends on the
difference in temperature between the fluid and the outside ambient
temperature, which is far greater for the LOX than for the kerosene.

Seems to me that loading the He2 under pressure and LOX that surrounds
it is the higher risk part and could be done before they board, and then
load the kerosene at last minute so it is as cold as possible.


Can't do it that way and keep the LOX sub-cooled.

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?

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.
  #9  
Old May 27th 18, 02:31 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Load and Go

JF Mezei wrote on Sat, 26 May 2018
18:41:53 -0400:

On 2018-05-25 20:46, Fred J. McCall wrote:

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


From a performance point of view, isn't SpaceX concerned about having
the kerosene fuel as cold as possible? (aka: loaded only at last minute)


Well, not "as cold as possible", since that would mean it was frozen
solid, but I take your meaning and I already said just that an article
or two ago. Again, Block 5 has higher performance than Block 4, so
the performance difference from propellant density may be manageable.


Doesn't LOX remain cold naturally once loaded and the only concern to
have it constantly refilled as some of it boils out?


No. That would violate physics. There wouldn't be anything 'boiling
off' if it just remained cold.


Seems to me that loading the He2 under pressure and LOX that surrounds
it is the higher risk part and could be done before they board, and then
load the kerosene at last minute so it is as cold as possible.


Except LOX and helium don't violate the laws of physics, so they start
warming up the instant they hit the tanks.


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).


Note: Well, not really.


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
  #10  
Old May 28th 18, 03:04 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Load and Go

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
 




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 05:19 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.