SpaceX has decided to resume flight due to the financial damage suffered after the Falcon 9 explosion which revealed to imply a lot of costs. A safety board at NASA proposed in a report that they should accurately analyze the security issues which appeared in the fueling plans for Falcon 9 rocket. On January 11, the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP) has released their report concerning SpaceX’s approach to fuel their Falcon 9 spaceship.
- SpaceX is bound to resume flights due to the financial damage suffered after Falcon 9 explosion.
- Several committees from NASA have blamed the wrong approach of fueling adopted by SpaceX.
- Specialists argued that SpaceX’s approach violated some safety regulations.
The rocket was fueled with kerosene propellants and liquid oxygen after astronauts have boarded the Dragon spacecraft. Generally, space crafts are fed several hours before they are launched and only after that the members of the crew board the rocket. Nevertheless, SpaceX had used another approach of powering the craft, starting the process with only half an hour before Falcon 9 was supposed to set off.
Thus, the company tried to use super-cooled liquid oxygen. This type of fuel is bound to bring additional performance, and it’s denser. However, the new approach required the boarding of the crew members before specialists start fueling the rocket.
ASAP has noted in its report that nobody knew how safe was the new approach regarding the limited use of the “load and go” approach. That is why the Panel is worried that the loading densified propellants together with the dynamic thermal consequences of the entire system may not be explicitly perceived. In this way, the outcome is a high level of uncertainty which should be taken into consideration when it comes to the risk of determination.
In December 2015, The International Space Station Advisory Committee, another advisory group from NASA, was the first team which raised concerns regarding the “load and go” approach adopted by SpaceX. Their interest received more attention especially when a Falcon 9 spacecraft had exploded before a static-fire test was conducted, on the pad.
The test was scheduled for September 1st before the launch the satellite known as the Amos-6. The committee argued that it was against safety criteria to board the crew first and then load the oxidizer into the craft. This rule has been available for more than 50 years at an international level. During a meeting on October 31, Stafford has brought up this issue again, and he complained that NASA did not bother to answer his letter even after the incident on the pad.
Image courtesy of: flickr