4 ms·

SpaceX has lost 2 F9 so far. The first exploded in flight, but the Dragon capsule could have been retreived, if the parashutes had not been disbled in the start

by _ph_ 9y ago

SpaceX has lost 2 F9 so far. The first exploded in flight, but the Dragon capsule could have been retreived, if the parashutes had not been disbled in the starting phase. The second fueling for the static fire test. In both cases, no crew would have been in danger, and of course the causes of the failures has been adressed. But it will at least take another 12 months till the first planned crew flight. If everything goes well, the Falcon 9 will have about 30 more flights till then. A lot of opportunity to build a safety record.

greglindahl 9y ago
Everyone expects the LAS (launch abort system) to not be very reliable. So you're a bit optimistic about the outcome of the second failure: big danger for the crew.
- boardwaalk 9y ago
  Who is "everyone"? Because it certainly isn't actually everyone.
- Robotbeat 9y ago
  It was a static fire, so crew wouldn't be on board anyway. 100% no danger to crew in that case. LAS is likely to be very reliable for ground aborts. Design criteria insist on high (say, 95%) total reliability for LAS. Part of the reason you might want to do such static fires is as a way to trigger (and thus reveal) such problems without endangering crew.
Rebelgecko 9y ago
No crew would have been danger for the second launch, but only because it was a static fire. If it were an actual launch it could've been pretty bad
- JshWright 9y ago
  The launch escape system would have been able to safely get the crew clear of the rocket in the AMOS-6 incident if it had been a crewed fight. (Based on the performance of the capsule during the pad abort test)
forapurpose 9y ago
> the Dragon capsule could have been retreived, if the parashutes had not been disbled in the starting phase The chance of it being retrieved would have been much greater if the the parachutes hadn't been disabled. I expect a forum of engineers to know better than to assume everything would have worked correctly.

by _ph_ 9y ago

greglindahl 9y ago

Everyone expects the LAS (launch abort system) to not be very reliable. So you're a bit optimistic about the outcome of the second failure: big danger for the crew.

boardwaalk 9y ago
Who is "everyone"? Because it certainly isn't actually everyone.
Robotbeat 9y ago
It was a static fire, so crew wouldn't be on board anyway. 100% no danger to crew in that case. LAS is likely to be very reliable for ground aborts. Design criteria insist on high (say, 95%) total reliability for LAS. Part of the reason you might want to do such static fires is as a way to trigger (and thus reveal) such problems without endangering crew.

Rebelgecko 9y ago

No crew would have been danger for the second launch, but only because it was a static fire. If it were an actual launch it could've been pretty bad

JshWright 9y ago
The launch escape system would have been able to safely get the crew clear of the rocket in the AMOS-6 incident if it had been a crewed fight. (Based on the performance of the capsule during the pad abort test)

forapurpose 9y ago

> the Dragon capsule could have been retreived, if the parashutes had not been disbled in the starting phase The chance of it being retrieved would have been much greater if the the parachutes hadn't been disabled. I expect a forum of engineers to know better than to assume everything would have worked correctly.