4 ms·

NASA agreed to do a study to see if they could place humans on the test flight. That seems to me like the NASA equivalent of saying "Sure, I'll look into that"

NASA agreed to do a study to see if they could place humans on the test flight. That seems to me like the NASA equivalent of saying "Sure, I'll look into that" while trying to not look horrified. I'm pretty sure that study will conclude that this is a bad idea.

hackuser 10y ago
I sure hope so! I wouldn't want to be on that flight. The NASA article brought to mind a story of a well-known Cosmonaut knowingly launching in an unreliable vehicle because the politicians insisted. He died. He flew because he didn't want his understudy to be killed in his place. (I'm sure someone on HN knows the story better than I do ...).
- rst 10y ago
  That sounds like Soyuz 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_1
godelski 10y ago
I know for a fact that NASA is still concerned about that Helium tank.
- Pfhreak 10y ago
  The explosion from that helium tank was slower than the emergency rockets on the dragon, from what I understand. So, had the capsule been fitted with them, it would have stayed entirely clear of the event. It'd be a rough ride, but it would have been a survivable event.
  - godelski 10y ago
    The thing is that NASA doesn't want to put anyone on something has the chance of doing that. The emergency system is for emergencies. Ideally it should NEVER be used. Vetting for manned missions is a lot different than cargo. That's all I'm getting at here. When rockets have recently exploded NASA gets pretty worried about putting humans on it.
    - gus_massa 10y ago
      For comparison, the Space Shuttle has NO emergency system and approximately a 2% catastrophic failure rate ...
      - rbanffy 10y ago
        It had a couple abort options if one or more SMEs failed. Unfortunately, none of the catastrophic failures were predicted. Nature has a way to do things we don't expect it to do.
  - hackuser 10y ago
    > had the capsule been fitted with them, it would have stayed entirely clear of the event. It'd be a rough ride, but it would have been a survivable event. Safety isn't defined by, 'did it work out ok?', but by the risk. In this case, the outcome the parent describes is hypothetical; among other things, it assumes the emergency escape system would have worked perfectly. I assume NASA wants to evaluate the risk of the helium tanks, not the hypothetical outcome. For example, some people have survived plane crashes; the fact that it worked out doesn't mean that the risk was acceptable.
    - brianwawok 10y ago
      > For example, some people have survived plane crashes; the fact that it worked out doesn't mean that the risk was acceptable. The millions of people that fly every day despite past plane crashes would disagree with you.
  - thelambentonion 10y ago
    Launch Abort is a system that should _never_ have to be activated. If you use Launch Abort, the series of failures preceding it was so catastrophic that you had no alternative to avoid loss of life.

hackuser 10y ago

I sure hope so! I wouldn't want to be on that flight. The NASA article brought to mind a story of a well-known Cosmonaut knowingly launching in an unreliable vehicle because the politicians insisted. He died. He flew because he didn't want his understudy to be killed in his place. (I'm sure someone on HN knows the story better than I do ...).

rst 10y ago
That sounds like Soyuz 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_1

godelski 10y ago

I know for a fact that NASA is still concerned about that Helium tank.

Pfhreak 10y ago
The explosion from that helium tank was slower than the emergency rockets on the dragon, from what I understand. So, had the capsule been fitted with them, it would have stayed entirely clear of the event. It'd be a rough ride, but it would have been a survivable event.
- godelski 10y ago
  The thing is that NASA doesn't want to put anyone on something has the chance of doing that. The emergency system is for emergencies. Ideally it should NEVER be used. Vetting for manned missions is a lot different than cargo. That's all I'm getting at here. When rockets have recently exploded NASA gets pretty worried about putting humans on it.
  - gus_massa 10y ago
    For comparison, the Space Shuttle has NO emergency system and approximately a 2% catastrophic failure rate ...
    - rbanffy 10y ago
      It had a couple abort options if one or more SMEs failed. Unfortunately, none of the catastrophic failures were predicted. Nature has a way to do things we don't expect it to do.
- hackuser 10y ago
  > had the capsule been fitted with them, it would have stayed entirely clear of the event. It'd be a rough ride, but it would have been a survivable event. Safety isn't defined by, 'did it work out ok?', but by the risk. In this case, the outcome the parent describes is hypothetical; among other things, it assumes the emergency escape system would have worked perfectly. I assume NASA wants to evaluate the risk of the helium tanks, not the hypothetical outcome. For example, some people have survived plane crashes; the fact that it worked out doesn't mean that the risk was acceptable.
  - brianwawok 10y ago
    > For example, some people have survived plane crashes; the fact that it worked out doesn't mean that the risk was acceptable. The millions of people that fly every day despite past plane crashes would disagree with you.
- thelambentonion 10y ago
  Launch Abort is a system that should _never_ have to be activated. If you use Launch Abort, the series of failures preceding it was so catastrophic that you had no alternative to avoid loss of life.