Discussion of NASA data review delaying SpaceX launches

[oiorionsbelt]

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

That it was most recent is what makes it special

[mkent]

Non-fatal flight issues are more common than fatal flight issues…

It would be much better if you can explain how delaying the launch so you get zero data helps?

I see three relevant possibilities.

1) Both the Starlink and the Psyche flights go off without a hitch.  Considering that SpaceX has launched Falcons successfully 200 times in a row, this is the most likely possibility.

2) Another possibility is that a common defect exists in both the Starlink Falcon 9 and the Psyche Falcon Heavy.  In this case, it would be better to launch the Starlink Falcon first and find out.

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.

Whether possibility #2 or possibility #3 is the more likely occurrence is not something easily discerned from the outside, but if non-fatal flight issues are indeed more common than fatal flight issues, it could very well be possibility #3.  NASA seems to have decided that that is indeed the case.  I’m in no position to second-guess them.  I doubt few here are.

[steveleach]

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

That it was most recent is what makes it special

That's a non-answer.

Is there something you'd expect to be able to learn from the most recent launch that you couldn't from the one before that, or any of the others?

[Jim]

Is there something you'd expect to be able to learn from the most recent launch that you couldn't from the one before that, or any of the others?

Component failure

[Jim]

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

No, just lack of understanding.

Anyways, it doesn't matter how I answer.  It won't be good enough.  The fix is in and the bias is there and has been for years. SpaceX good, anybody not SpaceX is bad. 

When it comes to groups/websites, it's either Apollo Saturn was greatest and nothing matters since then or it is SpaceX will rule and can do anything and Elon walks on water. 

[steveleach]

Is there something you'd expect to be able to learn from the most recent launch that you couldn't from the one before that, or any of the others?

Component failure

Again, not really an answer. What is it about the most recent launch that makes component failure more likely or provides more data?

Everyone's stating stuff like it is obvious, so sorry if I'm being really dense here, but could someone spell it out to me like I was eight years old or something?

[ThatOldJanxSpirit]

Is there something you'd expect to be able to learn from the most recent launch that you couldn't from the one before that, or any of the others?

Component failure

Again, not really an answer. What is it about the most recent launch that makes component failure more likely or provides more data?

Everyone's stating stuff like it is obvious, so sorry if I'm being really dense here, but could someone spell it out to me like I was eight years old or something?

Eli8

NASA requires a full review of the previous F9 mission to determine if there are any issues prior to launching Psyche.
There is insufficient time to do a full review for Starlink 6-22 so it has been delayed.
Jim thinks this is sensible.
Others are arguing that NASA now has no chance of identifying any issues with 6-22 so this denies NASA data and impedes commercial operations.

[alugobi]

So why not just review 7-4 or 6-21? 

This is like Xeno's paradox.

[steveleach]

Is there something you'd expect to be able to learn from the most recent launch that you couldn't from the one before that, or any of the others?

Component failure

Again, not really an answer. What is it about the most recent launch that makes component failure more likely or provides more data?

Everyone's stating stuff like it is obvious, so sorry if I'm being really dense here, but could someone spell it out to me like I was eight years old or something?

Eli8

NASA requires a full review of the previous F9 mission to determine if there are any issues prior to launching Psyche.
There is insufficient time to do a full review for Starlink 6-22 so it has been delayed.
Jim thinks this is sensible.
Others are arguing that NASA now has no chance of identifying any issues with 6-22 so this denies NASA data and impedes commercial operations.

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....

[Jim]

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....

A new failure

[joek]

NASA requires a full review of the previous F9 mission to determine if there are any issues prior to launching Psyche.
There is insufficient time to do a full review for Starlink 6-22 so it has been delayed.
Jim thinks this is sensible.
Others are arguing that NASA now has no chance of identifying any issues with 6-22 so this denies NASA data and impedes commercial operations.

Would challenge that without further clarification (Jim?).
1. NASA can require whatever they require, including delay of  NASA missions (e.g., Psyche). Their business, their requirements.
2. NASA cannot require anything of non-NASA flights. Not NASA's business, not their requirements.
3. Only exception to above would be where public safety is at risk?

Question seems to revolve around #2? Could view it as NASA being reasonably protective-cautious, or sticking their nose where it does not belong.

[steveleach]

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....

A new failure

But that's true for all flights. What's special about the most recent one? Why isn't it just another data point?

[Jim]

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....

A new failure

But that's true for all flights. What's special about the most recent one? Why isn't it just another data point?

Because it is new data

[whitelancer64]

Is there something you'd expect to be able to learn from the most recent launch that you couldn't from the one before that, or any of the others?

Component failure

Again, not really an answer. What is it about the most recent launch that makes component failure more likely or provides more data?

Everyone's stating stuff like it is obvious, so sorry if I'm being really dense here, but could someone spell it out to me like I was eight years old or something?

The best / most up to date data. Particularly helpful with a launch provider like SpaceX that is constantly tweaking ops and updating components. We know they like to push the limits on Starlink launches.

If Falcon 9 design and build were 100% frozen, you'd have a better argument that a launch less than N days prior to Big Launch isn't important enough to review the data on.

[meekGee]

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....

A new failure

And if you postpone the Starlink flight to after Psyche - how does that help?

[Jim]

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....

A new failure

And if you postpone the Starlink flight to after Psyche - how does that help?

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.

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.

[meekGee]

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....

A new failure

And if you postpone the Starlink flight to after Psyche - how does that help?

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=59679.msg2531137#msg2531137

Does not answer the question.

If Starlink is set to launch before Psyche, but too close to do post launch review, if you instead delay the Starlink to launch after Psyche, it won't help Payche's chances.

In a marginal way it actually hurts them, because what of Starlink fails in an obvious way detectable without a review.

The only reason to postpone Starlink is people not wanting to be blamed (wrongly) for any Psyche failure.

In the good old days, the delay was no big deal, so the silliness was overlooked.  But now with bi-weekly launches, it's becoming apparent.

[steveleach]

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....

A new failure

But that's true for all flights. What's special about the most recent one? Why isn't it just another data point?

Because it is new data

Yes, obviously. I think even eight year olds understand that the most recent data is "new".

What makes new data inherently better than older data?

[Jim]

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....

A new failure

But that's true for all flights. What's special about the most recent one? Why isn't it just another data point?

Because it is new data

Yes, obviously. I think even eight year olds understand that the most recent data is "new".

What makes new data inherently better than older data?

the launch vehicles are not static.  These are not the same design as a year ago.  Every upperstage is new.

[Metalskin]

But that's true for all flights. What's special about the most recent one? Why isn't it just another data point?

Because it is new data

I do agree that NASA's rules are not the best for adapting to the current environment. However I do agree with Jim. Any flight is new data that may reveal a problem. If that new data is not reviewed prior to the next flight then if something goes bad then there is going to be a lot of egg of face, soul searching, etc.

However this is an approach that NASA has learnt the hard way, and to be honest, I see no reason why NASA shouldn't continue this way, until such a time that this approach can be properly reviewed and risk understood.

Bashing Jim is not really called for. I know he can be blunt, and very short, but lets assume that he has a tonne of insight that he cannot share and that insight supports NASA's approach. And as others have said, NASA is way more risk adverse than SpaceX with starlink flights.

Let's stop the antagonism towards Jim and take what he says at face value please.