4 ms·

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 w

by 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.

by Pfhreak 10y ago

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.