SpaceX, NASA Now Targeting Jan. 11 for In-flight Abort Test
KENNEDY SPACE CENTER, Fla. (NASA PR) — NASA and SpaceX are targeting no earlier than Jan. 11, 2020, for a critical In-Flight Abort Test of the Crew Dragon spacecraft from Launch Complex 39A at the Kennedy Space Center, Florida, pending U.S. Air Force Eastern Range approval.
As part of the test, SpaceX will configure Crew Dragon to trigger a launch escape shortly after liftoff and demonstrate Crew Dragon’s capability to safely separate from the Falcon 9 rocket in the unlikely event of an in-flight emergency. The demonstration also will provide valuable data toward NASA certifying SpaceX’s crew transportation system for carrying astronauts to and from the International Space Station.
The demonstration of Crew Dragon’s launch escape system is part of NASA’s Commercial Crew Program and is one of the final major tests for the company before NASA astronauts will fly aboard the spacecraft.
The In-Flight Abort Test follows a series of static fire engine tests of the spacecraft conducted Nov. 13 near SpaceX’s Landing Zone 1 on Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida. SpaceX will also conduct a static fire test of its Falcon 9 rocket ahead of the In-Flight Abort Test.
10 responses to “SpaceX, NASA Now Targeting Jan. 11 for In-flight Abort Test”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
It ain’t easy.
Well, at least we’re down to specific dates in the same month
It could be made easier with a little more understanding of real risk. Some have made a reasonable argument that adding the abort systems in the first place is a misplaced focus on a single risk element. That focus on one element detracts from attention and resources that could address other risk elements that could be more hazardous in aggregate even if less spectacular.
The existence of the LAS increases the GLOW considerably which often drives to larger rockets or configurations with less flight history and a lower launch cadence. (Orion/SLS) Resources of focus, time, and money are diverted from heat shields, radiation shielding and sundry other safety issues in the fanatical focus on the highly visible first two minutes of launch.
Not even including the risk factors the LAS adds. I would like to see real trades done on mission safety if the resources diverted to this single issue were used on the rest of the factors.
Interesting point
Most abort systems do add a lot of weight. But this one was originally designed to land which means that this would have been a freebie.
Propulsive landing is gone, but I’ve been wondering if this can be used for boosting ISS? Once attached and trunk is emptied, jettison the trunk and then use the engines.
If so, than SX just regained some use of that fuel/weight.
That sounds seriously useful. Though I do wonder how converting the landing system to an abort and landing system affected the complexity and weight.
I will not boycott as there are no Russian engines.
SX no doubt just breathed a huge sigh of relief.
What exactly does a Saturn1300 boycott entail?
A principled avoidance of live streams. He’ll watch a replay if it blows up.
Oops. We have a corner case.