Discussion of NASA data review delaying SpaceX launches

[meekGee]

I find it unfortunate that they have to analyse every prior Falcon launch. Of course I understand why (if there was an indicator of a possible issue that wasn’t analysed and anything ever happened there’d be hell to pay).

But they have way more data on Falcon than any other launch vehicle NASA uses. They have also analysed all prior FH launches. It saddens me that data from 71 prior launches this year wouldn’t be enough and it would have to be 72 if Starlink 6-22 launches.

Would it sadden you more if they have the option to look at the data, choose not to, and miss something as a result that causes the launch to fail?

I understand it can look like a burden, but having more flights with more data is an opportunity no other launcher has or has ever had.  They're just doing their due diligence to take advantage of that.

But delaying that flight so that there is no data for you not to look at (yeah I know) is the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and singing ‘la la la la’ very loudly.

SpaceX has to delay a flight. Psyche gets less data than if that flight actually flew. Some middle managers get to cover their derrières against hypothetical criticism.

Not good.

That's exactly right.

But people prefer that than to (in the event of a failure) have someone else blame them for not reviewing the data.

Better to make that data unavailable to begin with...

Human nature over logic.

When flights were far apart normally, this wasn't a big deal, but nowadays it's nonsensical. One more thing that's waiting for the big reset that will come with full/rapid reusability. (when also airplane analogies will start being fully applicable)

[Jim]

just more nonsense from the peanut gallery

[mn]

Suppose Psyche fails and the cause boils down to something that also affected regular F9 and would have been caught if the delayed flight were allowed to launch?

Who you going to point the finger at then?

Even from a cya perspective this is illogical.

[abaddon]

Non-fatal flight issues are more common than fatal flight issues, we know that for a fact even with the obvious disclosed ones, who knows about ones haven't been publicly disclosed?  NASA has deep insight into all of the telemetry SpaceX collects and doubtless knows about a zillion things that were issues that we don't know about because we didn't see an obvious repercussion (e.g. engine out on the flight that lost the booster on recovery a while back) and there wasn't a later disclosure.

You don't know.  I don't know.  But you know who knows?  NASA.  As someone who works at a job where people all the time make really ignorant guesses as to why something is what it is, I am sympathetic to the NASA folks (some of whom are on this thread) who have to put up with this -- again -- arm-chair quarterbacking from people who have almost zero insight into any of these things.  It's not that people here are dumb - far from it - they are simply uninformed.

So sure, because something seems counter-intuitive to us ignoramuses, NASA must just be dumb.  That's the obvious answer.  Right?  Right.

[ThatOldJanxSpirit]

just more nonsense from the peanut gallery

Thank you for your insightful high value added comment Jim.

Would you deign to explain to us lowly ignoramuses how delaying a launch in order to get no data instead of some data is somehow better?

[mn]

Non-fatal flight issues are more common than fatal flight issues, we know that for a fact even with the obvious disclosed ones, who knows about ones haven't been publicly disclosed?  NASA has deep insight into all of the telemetry SpaceX collects and doubtless knows about a zillion things that were issues that we don't know about because we didn't see an obvious repercussion (e.g. engine out on the flight that lost the booster on recovery a while back) and there wasn't a later disclosure.

You don't know.  I don't know.  But you know who knows?  NASA.  As someone who works at a job where people all the time make really ignorant guesses as to why something is what it is, I am sympathetic to the NASA folks (some of whom are on this thread) who have to put up with this -- again -- arm-chair quarterbacking from people who have almost zero insight into any of these things.  It's not that people here are dumb - far from it - they are simply uninformed.

So sure, because something seems counter-intuitive to us ignoramuses, NASA must just be dumb.  That's the obvious answer.  Right?  Right.

It would be much better if you can explain how delaying the launch so you get zero data helps?
(Rather than criticizing people who have legitimate logic questions)

That is the question you keep ignoring.

Nobody is saying NASA is stupid. We are arguing that this rule doesn't help in the current context. Nothing wrong with outsiders questioning a decision by the professional insiders, we are just discussing it so we can understand better.

If you can explain how the rule is beneficial I would be happy to hear it and learn something new.

Edit to add: The rule made perfect sense when written. NASA is currently following that rule, that also makes perfect sense, we have learned many times over that following the rules is (usually) the better choice.

All we are discussing is whether the rule still makes sense today (with SpaceX specifically).

[Jim]

Would you deign to explain to us lowly ignoramuses how delaying a launch in order to get no data instead of some data is somehow better?

There is no "some" data if you don't have time to review it.  SpaceX self insures Starlink and is willing to take the risks with quick launch cadence.  Plus SpaceX is also manned for it. Some other payloads may or may not take the risk.  The issue is if there was a problem and it also affected the next launch, what do you say?   "we had the data but didn't have the time to look at it"

Many payloads groups are not manned for 24hour ops.  They might be able to handle some surges but not long term.

[mn]

Would you deign to explain to us lowly ignoramuses how delaying a launch in order to get no data instead of some data is somehow better?

There is no "some" data if you don't have time to review it.  SpaceX self insures Starlink and is willing to take the risks with quick launch cadence.  Plus SpaceX is also manned for it. Some other payloads may or may not take the risk.  The issue is if there was a problem and it also affected the next launch, what do you say?   "we had the data but didn't have the time to look at it"

Many payloads groups are not manned for 24hour ops.  They might be able to handle some surges but not long term.

Thank you for your reply.

But you are not addressing the only one question everyone is asking: how does delaying the launch improve things vs launching and not fully reviewing the data? How does delaying the launch reduce risk? (as said very eloquently earlier, it is really akin to sticking your fingers in your ears or your head in the sand)

[meekGee]

just more nonsense from the peanut gallery

Responses like this just prove the point.

You've yet to explain how flying Starlink after Psyche gives better data than flying it a day before Psyche and not doing a full data review on it.

Industry inertia has been around since, well, the dawn of industry.  People take three weeks to learn how things are done, and 30 years can't make them unlearn any of it.  The old joke about the monkey banana experiment predates SpaceX by probably half a century.

[Jim]

It has nothing to do with "better" data.  It never was.
When SpaceX takes on a gov't payload, there are some concessions that it has to make.

[mn]

It has nothing to do with "better" data.  It never was.
When SpaceX takes on a gov't payload, there are some concessions that it has to make.

Once again ignoring the question.

Yes of course SpaceX agreed to follow the rules NASA puts down, and of course the rule leads to the flight being delayed.

That doesn't mean the rule still makes sense today.

Forget NASA and SpaceX and this mission, just answer the question: Do you think delaying a launch reduces risk for the next launch? Since you love short answers a simple YES or NO will suffice. Thank you.

[joek]

There is no "some" data if you don't have time to review it.  SpaceX self insures Starlink and is willing to take the risks with quick launch cadence.  Plus SpaceX is also manned for it. Some other payloads may or may not take the risk.  The issue is if there was a problem and it also affected the next launch, what do you say?   "we had the data but didn't have the time to look at it"
...

So where do you draw the line? Could argue that any prior launch is relevant, regardless of LV or payload. But that would be absurd, yes? So maybe any prior launch on a similar LV? Or on the same LV?

Now that we're negotiating, define same or similar. Then we can talk about that within a give time frame? Most recent? Within the last X hours? What?

What may be intuitively obvious to you is not to the rest of us. Moreover, would expect some explicit and quantifiable numbers, as what you have expressed is opinion, not fact.

We're looking for facts. Thanks.

[Nomadd]

 I wonder if there's some 12 syllable German word for the concept of it being better to not have information so you can't be accused of not acting on it.

[ThatOldJanxSpirit]

Would you deign to explain to us lowly ignoramuses how delaying a launch in order to get no data instead of some data is somehow better?

There is no "some" data if you don't have time to review it.  SpaceX self insures Starlink and is willing to take the risks with quick launch cadence.  Plus SpaceX is also manned for it. Some other payloads may or may not take the risk.  The issue is if there was a problem and it also affected the next launch, what do you say?   "we had the data but didn't have the time to look at it"

Many payloads groups are not manned for 24hour ops.  They might be able to handle some surges but not long term.

What if there was a problem that would have been revealed by Starlink 6-22? What do you say, “we would have had a chance to identify the problem but we decided not to look”.

Of course there is “some data”. Starlink Group 6-22 in orbit is some data. B1067 sitting on ASOG is some data. SpaceX quick review of telemetry is some data.

Nobody is arguing that these are the rules, and that SpaceX should and have complied with them.  Rules are imposed for a purpose, but when those rules are clearly detrimental to all parties involved they need to be challenged.

That’s me out of peanuts!

[ThatOldJanxSpirit]

I wonder if there's some 12 syllable German word for the concept of it being better to not have information so you can't be accused of not acting on it.

Vogel-Strauß-Politik

[Jim]

Of course there is “some data”. Starlink Group 6-22 in orbit is some data. B1067 sitting on ASOG is some data.

Not relevant.   

January 24, 1985 STS 51-C worst SRB o-ring blow by seen.

[Jim]

but when those rules are clearly detrimental to all parties involved they need to be challenged.

There has been nothing detrimental to any party.

[matthewkantar]

More useful examples for me to use when trying to illustrate the meaning of “hidebound.”

[meekGee]

It has nothing to do with "better" data.  It never was.
When SpaceX takes on a gov't payload, there are some concessions that it has to make.

Of course, but that's exactly what people are saying.  These concessions include abiding by the letter of a requirement that no longer makes sense, if it ever did.

[steveleach]

Sorry if I missed an answer to this, but what makes the most recent launch special when it comes to getting data?