Observations from a fellow member:Jim is laconic. Like the Spartan reply to Philip of Macedon. He's not a loquacious chap, at least on-line.First of all, this splinter thread should not be a take-all-comers "rasslin'" match. If you are not happy with his replies, then maybe someone should further research and write an NSF article about it. Jim might consent to be a source?Please also avoid turning this discussion into a Jim bear-baiting. They are illegal, including here in the forum. It's happened before, and the results are deleted.[Philip: If I invade Laconia, I shall turn you out.Spartan ephors' reply: If.]
To the point, as is, not only was Psyche deprived of post launch analysis of Starlink 6-22,
Quote from: meekGee on 10/13/2023 04:32 pmTo the point, as is, not only was Psyche deprived of post launch analysis of Starlink 6-22,That was never going to happen
Question for Jim (from Novice here):AIUI, SpaceX is collecting a lot of telemetry data on each launch that needs to be analyzed. Do you think an automated process will be able to perform such analyses in the near future such that it could satisfy NASA's data review? With Falcon 9's increased launch cadence, perhaps 3 times a week by next year, manual data reviews seem hard to accomplish so rapidly (every 2-3 days).
Quote from: ZachS09 on 10/13/2023 12:06 pmQuote from: mandrewa on 10/13/2023 11:58 amQuote from: edzieba on 10/13/2023 10:47 amAMOS-7 was lost because a process change (LHe load sequencing and load speed) uncovered a new failure mode (solid LOX formation within CoPV weave) in the upper stage.I thought AMOS-7 was lost during a test, not a launch. There were exploring a faster LOX load sequence. It wasn't the LOX load sequence they had been using in previous launches or that they planned to use in the AMOS-7 launch. It was a new data point.I'm imaging a graph with one axis being fill time and another axis being perhaps pressure and yet another being temperature. This was just a combination of conditions that they hadn't tried before.QuoteThat was not the first launch to use that process change, and there were opportunities to review past load sequences and pick up fibre break noise from the accelerometer telemetry just as it was picked up for AMOS-7.If I understand you, you're saying that after the AMOS-7 accident, they discovered that they could detect "fibre break noise" in the right circumstances. But I'm guessing that they were not looking to detect any such thing before the accident.I don't think they should be blamed for not looking for "fibre break noise" in earlier LOX loadings. I suspect it's only because of the accident that we know that this is something to look for.I didn’t know there was an AMOS 7. How come Spacecom didn’t make that satellite as a backup for AMOS 6, but rather mount it on Falcon 9 only for it to be lost in the test failure?AMOS-7 was originally launched as AsiaSat 8 on a F9 v 1.1 on on 5 August 2014 - In 2017 the sat was leased to Spacecom and renamed AMOS-7, The sat is in orbit and operational.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AsiaSat_8Obviously the post meant the ill-fated AMOS-6
Quote from: mandrewa on 10/13/2023 11:58 amQuote from: edzieba on 10/13/2023 10:47 amAMOS-7 was lost because a process change (LHe load sequencing and load speed) uncovered a new failure mode (solid LOX formation within CoPV weave) in the upper stage.I thought AMOS-7 was lost during a test, not a launch. There were exploring a faster LOX load sequence. It wasn't the LOX load sequence they had been using in previous launches or that they planned to use in the AMOS-7 launch. It was a new data point.I'm imaging a graph with one axis being fill time and another axis being perhaps pressure and yet another being temperature. This was just a combination of conditions that they hadn't tried before.QuoteThat was not the first launch to use that process change, and there were opportunities to review past load sequences and pick up fibre break noise from the accelerometer telemetry just as it was picked up for AMOS-7.If I understand you, you're saying that after the AMOS-7 accident, they discovered that they could detect "fibre break noise" in the right circumstances. But I'm guessing that they were not looking to detect any such thing before the accident.I don't think they should be blamed for not looking for "fibre break noise" in earlier LOX loadings. I suspect it's only because of the accident that we know that this is something to look for.I didn’t know there was an AMOS 7. How come Spacecom didn’t make that satellite as a backup for AMOS 6, but rather mount it on Falcon 9 only for it to be lost in the test failure?
Quote from: edzieba on 10/13/2023 10:47 amAMOS-7 was lost because a process change (LHe load sequencing and load speed) uncovered a new failure mode (solid LOX formation within CoPV weave) in the upper stage.I thought AMOS-7 was lost during a test, not a launch. There were exploring a faster LOX load sequence. It wasn't the LOX load sequence they had been using in previous launches or that they planned to use in the AMOS-7 launch. It was a new data point.I'm imaging a graph with one axis being fill time and another axis being perhaps pressure and yet another being temperature. This was just a combination of conditions that they hadn't tried before.QuoteThat was not the first launch to use that process change, and there were opportunities to review past load sequences and pick up fibre break noise from the accelerometer telemetry just as it was picked up for AMOS-7.If I understand you, you're saying that after the AMOS-7 accident, they discovered that they could detect "fibre break noise" in the right circumstances. But I'm guessing that they were not looking to detect any such thing before the accident.I don't think they should be blamed for not looking for "fibre break noise" in earlier LOX loadings. I suspect it's only because of the accident that we know that this is something to look for.
AMOS-7 was lost because a process change (LHe load sequencing and load speed) uncovered a new failure mode (solid LOX formation within CoPV weave) in the upper stage.
That was not the first launch to use that process change, and there were opportunities to review past load sequences and pick up fibre break noise from the accelerometer telemetry just as it was picked up for AMOS-7.
"Fool me once: shame on you. Fool me twice: shame on me."If this situation was a surprise to SpaceX, then they learned a lesson. Going forward, they need to factor the opportunity costs of the foregone launches into the price of any launch that has this constraint. NASA can choose to either relax the constraint or pay the premium.
Quote from: meekGee on 10/12/2023 09:15 pmQuote from: Jim on 10/12/2023 08:55 pmQuote from: steveleach on 10/12/2023 08:54 pmThat's an explanation for the content of this thread, I'm looking for an explanation of what information there is in flight n-1 that informs risk decisions about flight n, but that isn't available from flight n-2, n-3, n-4....A new failureAnd if you postpone the Starlink flight to after Psyche - how does that help?Quote from: mkent on 10/12/2023 07:19 pm3) But another possibility is that the Starlink Falcon 9 has a defect not present in the Psyche Falcon Heavy. In this case, the anomaly investigation might push the Psyche launch out beyond the end of its launch period only to find the Psyche launch vehicle is clean. We’d incur a 15-month slip and tens of millions in extra expense for nothing.Prevents from have to go before Congress, when Psyche buys it and there was problem in the previous launch but the data wasn't reviewed.It also would affect insurance rates on commercial mission.
Quote from: Jim on 10/12/2023 08:55 pmQuote from: steveleach on 10/12/2023 08:54 pmThat's an explanation for the content of this thread, I'm looking for an explanation of what information there is in flight n-1 that informs risk decisions about flight n, but that isn't available from flight n-2, n-3, n-4....A new failureAnd if you postpone the Starlink flight to after Psyche - how does that help?
Quote from: steveleach on 10/12/2023 08:54 pmThat's an explanation for the content of this thread, I'm looking for an explanation of what information there is in flight n-1 that informs risk decisions about flight n, but that isn't available from flight n-2, n-3, n-4....A new failure
That's an explanation for the content of this thread, I'm looking for an explanation of what information there is in flight n-1 that informs risk decisions about flight n, but that isn't available from flight n-2, n-3, n-4....
3) But another possibility is that the Starlink Falcon 9 has a defect not present in the Psyche Falcon Heavy. In this case, the anomaly investigation might push the Psyche launch out beyond the end of its launch period only to find the Psyche launch vehicle is clean. We’d incur a 15-month slip and tens of millions in extra expense for nothing.
IMO, there is a fault in this argument. ...
the launch vehicles are not static. These are not the same design as a year ago. Every upperstage is new.
Quote from: Rebel44 on 10/15/2023 03:24 pmIMO, there is a fault in this argument. ...Not sure there is a fault in the argument, just not well articulated. Alternate scenario: Psyche and planned SpaceX launches (e.g., Starlink 6-22) shared differences from prior launches. NASA wants to ensure those differences do not impact Psyche. So they look for the latest data on which to evaluate the difference and potential impact to Psyche. Seems reasonable. Jim might have provided a clue there ...Quote from: Jim on 10/12/2023 09:43 pmthe launch vehicles are not static. These are not the same design as a year ago. Every upperstage is new.
In the good old days, the delay was no big deal…
Quote from: meekGee on 10/12/2023 09:24 pmIn the good old days, the delay was no big deal…There was a one-day delay to the 113th flight for a constellation with over 4,000 operational satellites. It’s still no big deal.
We are just debating whether delaying the launch is logically correct. (Because we like to debate lots of things that make almost no difference in the big picture)
with one of the questions at that point being why was the launch of Starlink 6-22 delayed when it would have provided at least data about any serious issue(s).
Quote from: mn on 10/15/2023 08:30 pmWe are just debating whether delaying the launch is logically correct. (Because we like to debate lots of things that make almost no difference in the big picture)If it make no difference and allows people to cover their asses, then it is logically correct.
Quote from: Jim on 10/16/2023 02:51 pmQuote from: mn on 10/15/2023 08:30 pmWe are just debating whether delaying the launch is logically correct. (Because we like to debate lots of things that make almost no difference in the big picture)If it make no difference and allows people to cover their asses, then it is logically correct.Except delaying the Starlink launch doesn't even accomplish this. Assume Psyche fails, and the Starlink launch could have foretold this - the situation where ass-covering is needed. Then NASA managers will get hauled before Congress, and asked why they delayed the launch of Starlink beyond Psyche, thus ruling out the possibility of even a blatant error (like a second stage failure) being found.