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.
Quote from: FutureSpaceTourist on 10/11/2023 08:22 pmI 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.It has nothing to do with the amount of data. NASA wants the data of the last mission before theirs.
Quote from: Jim on 10/11/2023 09:34 pmQuote from: FutureSpaceTourist on 10/11/2023 08:22 pmI 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.It has nothing to do with the amount of data. NASA wants the data of the last mission before theirs.But does that 'want' hold up to logical scrutiny when applied in to the current context? [...] I'm with FST that it does NOT hold up.
Quote from: mn on 10/11/2023 10:06 pmQuote from: Jim on 10/11/2023 09:34 pmQuote from: FutureSpaceTourist on 10/11/2023 08:22 pmI 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.It has nothing to do with the amount of data. NASA wants the data of the last mission before theirs.But does that 'want' hold up to logical scrutiny when applied in to the current context? [...] I'm with FST that it does NOT hold up.And you're basing this on what knowledge or insight? Are you sitting in on the data reviews? Do you have any idea what you're talking about? If you're going to slag NASA for this please let us know what credentials and involvement you have in this process.The arm-chair quarterbacking around here can be really something else.
Quote from: FutureSpaceTourist on 10/11/2023 08:22 pmI 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.Rules likely from the days of ULA launching a few missions a year, and being a bureaucracy, they can't update or flex them
Oh yes we know they 'want' it.But does that 'want' hold up to logical scrutiny when applied in to the current context?I'm with FST that it does NOT hold up.If we need the data from the latest launch before we go ahead, then logically if the latest launch didn't launch yet we should have to wait for it to launch. (yes I know that doesn't make any sense, and that is exactly my point)(The rule made sense once upon a time)
The whole reason for telemetry is the next mission.
Quote from: cpushack on 10/11/2023 09:32 pmQuote from: FutureSpaceTourist on 10/11/2023 08:22 pmI 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.Rules likely from the days of ULA launching a few missions a year, and being a bureaucracy, they can't update or flex them wrong
Quote from: Jim on 10/11/2023 11:57 pmThe whole reason for telemetry is the next mission.not if the last one didn't make it.
Quote from: Jim on 10/11/2023 09:34 pmIt has nothing to do with the amount of data. NASA wants the data of the last mission before theirs.Oh yes we know they 'want' it.But does that 'want' hold up to logical scrutiny when applied in to the current context?
It has nothing to do with the amount of data. NASA wants the data of the last mission before theirs.
Quote from: mn on 10/11/2023 10:06 pmQuote from: Jim on 10/11/2023 09:34 pmIt has nothing to do with the amount of data. NASA wants the data of the last mission before theirs.Oh yes we know they 'want' it.But does that 'want' hold up to logical scrutiny when applied in to the current context?....As an extreme example, it's not possible for commercial airplane flights to wait until all previous flights have completed, even though this could be considered optimal for safety.....
Quote from: LouScheffer on 10/12/2023 03:37 amQuote from: mn on 10/11/2023 10:06 pmQuote from: Jim on 10/11/2023 09:34 pmIt has nothing to do with the amount of data. NASA wants the data of the last mission before theirs.Oh yes we know they 'want' it.But does that 'want' hold up to logical scrutiny when applied in to the current context?....As an extreme example, it's not possible for commercial airplane flights to wait until all previous flights have completed, even though this could be considered optimal for safety.....You are missing an important detail in your example.Regular flights can continue as usual, but when a very important flight comes up then all flights that cannot complete before this very important flight departs have to be delayed.
Quote from: FutureSpaceTourist on 10/11/2023 08:22 pmI 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.
Quote from: abaddon on 10/11/2023 10:16 pmQuote from: FutureSpaceTourist on 10/11/2023 08:22 pmI 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.
just more nonsense from the peanut gallery
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.
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?
Quote from: ThatOldJanxSpirit on 10/12/2023 04:12 pmWould 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.
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.
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"...
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.
Of course there is “some data”. Starlink Group 6-22 in orbit is some data. B1067 sitting on ASOG is some data.
but when those rules are clearly detrimental to all parties involved they need to be challenged.
Sorry if I missed an answer to this, but what makes the most recent launch special when it comes to getting data?
Quote from: abaddon on 10/12/2023 03:20 pmNon-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?
Non-fatal flight issues are more common than fatal flight issues…
Quote from: steveleach on 10/12/2023 07:12 pmSorry 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
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?
More useful examples for me to use when trying to illustrate the meaning of “hidebound.”
Quote from: steveleach on 10/12/2023 07:22 pmIs 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
Quote from: Jim on 10/12/2023 07:26 pmQuote from: steveleach on 10/12/2023 07:22 pmIs 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 failureAgain, 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?
Quote from: steveleach on 10/12/2023 07:43 pmQuote from: Jim on 10/12/2023 07:26 pmQuote from: steveleach on 10/12/2023 07:22 pmIs 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 failureAgain, 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?Eli8NASA 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....
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.
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
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 failureBut that's true for all flights. What's special about the most recent one? Why isn't it just another data point?
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?
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.
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?https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=59679.msg2531137#msg2531137
Quote from: steveleach on 10/12/2023 09:04 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 failureBut 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
Quote from: Jim on 10/12/2023 09:12 pmQuote from: steveleach on 10/12/2023 09:04 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 failureBut 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 dataYes, obviously. I think even eight year olds understand that the most recent data is "new".What makes new data inherently better than older data?
Quote from: steveleach on 10/12/2023 09:04 pmBut 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
But that's true for all flights. What's special about the most recent one? Why isn't it just another data point?
Quote from: meekGee on 10/12/2023 09:24 pmIn 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.You have no place to call it silliness. Your day will come.nor is Starlink is not hurting for launch opportunities.
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.
I call it as I see it.
Quote from: Jim on 10/12/2023 09:12 pmQuote from: steveleach on 10/12/2023 09:04 pmBut 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 dataI 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.
Quote from: ThatOldJanxSpirit on 10/12/2023 05:40 pmOf 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.
Many times I can't reveal what I know
So why not just review 7-4 or 6-21? This is like Xeno's paradox.
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.
the launch vehicles are not static. These are not the same design as a year ago. Every upperstage is new.
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.
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.
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?
.......what is exactly the problem?
Just to complete this thread: Psyche has now launched successfully and is on it's way.https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=50260.msg2531383#msg2531383I hope we can put this thread to rest now. (until next time....)
Quote from: mn on 10/13/2023 03:25 pmJust to complete this thread: Psyche has now launched successfully and is on it's way.https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=50260.msg2531383#msg2531383I hope we can put this thread to rest now. (until next time....)Why? We still have no answer how holding back the Starlink launch could/might have affected the chance of success (or failure is your glass half empty) of the Psyche launch.
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
"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.
IMO, there is a fault in this argument. ...
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.
Quote from: LouScheffer on 10/16/2023 04:54 pmQuote 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.Wrong. The premise is that the previous launch can’t be reviewed without delaying Psyche. There is no way to review the previous.
Quote from: Jim on 10/16/2023 05:07 pmQuote from: LouScheffer on 10/16/2023 04:54 pmQuote 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.Wrong. The premise is that the previous launch can’t be reviewed without delaying Psyche. There is no way to review the previous.Wrong. There are errors that can be reviewed in time, such as a second stage failure.
How is this getting so complicated.Psyche's timing is fixed.Starlink can launch either a day before or be delayed and launch after. That's the obly decision to make.If it launches before, there's no time for a data review.If it lahnches after, there's no data at all.Some (major) failures don't require a data review to become apparent.Therefore:Delaying the launch of Starlink deprives Psyche of some data, in the relatively rare case of a major fault with Starlink.So for the sake of some ass covering, a little bit of risk was added to the Psyche mission.On the bright side, risk to the Starlink mission was reduced by the same small amount.
Incidentally, I think the approach used covered some asses and uncovered others. If Psyche failed, and it could have been foretold by Starlink, then there will be recriminations. Middle managers can say "NASA has this longstanding rule, which historically has made excellent sense. Modern developments have made this rule slightly counterproductive. But modifying this rule, or obtaining a waiver, is time-consuming and difficult, and deemed not worth the effort for what we thought was a small gain." But the managers that set the rules will be asked why the rules were not adapted to modern flight rates, even though everyone could see them coming for years.
Those folks are busy, and until this year the rule had no real negative effect.
Quote from: DanClemmensen on 10/17/2023 01:45 pmThose folks are busy, and until this year the rule had no real negative effect.Still had no real negative effect. The amount of crying over a Starlink flight being held until after Psyche launched is absurd. Launches get held all the time, SpaceX has delayed Starlink launches when a crewed launch is about to go up for example. Psyche had priority because of its limited launch window. Starlinks can fly whenever.
Quote from: abaddon on 10/17/2023 03:11 pmQuote from: DanClemmensen on 10/17/2023 01:45 pmThose folks are busy, and until this year the rule had no real negative effect.Still had no real negative effect. The amount of crying over a Starlink flight being held until after Psyche launched is absurd. Launches get held all the time, SpaceX has delayed Starlink launches when a crewed launch is about to go up for example. Psyche had priority because of its limited launch window. Starlinks can fly whenever.I don't think the crying is for the Starlink delay. The crying is for Psyche, a billion dollar, one of a kind, exceedingly hard to replace mission, taking an unnecessary risk. And NASA, for pursuing a course that actively mandates taking that risk. Fortunately it worked, but we may not be so lucky going forward.
The crying is for Psyche, a billion dollar, one of a kind, exceedingly hard to replace mission, taking an unnecessary risk.
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.The solution to this is version control. You should not assume that chronological order of the launch implies version number of the hardware.For example if Psyche is using upper stage serial number 1002 you can launch serial numbers 1001 and 1003 and use those as your baseline. (Assuming 1001-1003 are identically configured, if they are not rearrange things so they are.)Similarly for boosters and launch pad procedures.
Quote from: LouScheffer on 10/17/2023 03:47 pmThe crying is for Psyche, a billion dollar, one of a kind, exceedingly hard to replace mission, taking an unnecessary risk. Funny. But ridiculous.I'm out. Everyone else, have fun.
I think the larger question begged is whether LSP is earning its keep. Why does NASA need to review data when SpaceX has already done so, on a rocket that has been exceedingly well characterized? The value of a re-review sure seems to be diminishing quickly.
[Edit to add context from Psyche mission thread - SpaceX originally delayed the F9 Starlink 6-22 launch because there would not have been enough time for NASA to analyse the launch data prior to the following FH Psyche launch]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.
Quote from: Barley on 10/17/2023 06:15 pmQuote 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.The solution to this is version control. You should not assume that chronological order of the launch implies version number of the hardware.For example if Psyche is using upper stage serial number 1002 you can launch serial numbers 1001 and 1003 and use those as your baseline. (Assuming 1001-1003 are identically configured, if they are not rearrange things so they are.)Similarly for boosters and launch pad procedures.They still aren't identical
Quote from: Barley on 10/17/2023 06:15 pmQuote 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.The solution to this is version control. You should not assume that chronological order of the launch implies version number of the hardware.For example if Psyche is using upper stage serial number 1002 you can launch serial numbers 1001 and 1003 and use those as your baseline. (Assuming 1001-1003 are identically configured, if they are not rearrange things so they are.)Similarly for boosters and launch pad procedures.Coming up with a solution isn't the issue, tbh; recognising that there's a problem is.
Quote from: RedLineTrain on 10/17/2023 03:53 pmI think the larger question begged is whether LSP is earning its keep. Why does NASA need to review data when SpaceX has already done so, on a rocket that has been exceedingly well characterized? The value of a re-review sure seems to be diminishing quickly.how do you know that SpaceX already has? It isn't for "characterization"
It's not about money for NASA.
So, it either is or it isn't. I don't care. My point is that, from appearances, SX and NASA have different priorities. Make money and get to Mars vs. don't screw the pooch again.
what a bizarre thread.NASA reviews involve SpaceX engineers. SpaceX doesn't have Falcon engineers dedicated to NASA. NASA and Air Force flights demand more preparation and more time from SpaceX engineers than any other flights. Hence the "dead zone" before any NASA/Air Force flight. This time/availability of SpaceX engineering force is contracted by NASA/Air Force.The BS about "data" is BS.
Quote from: dondar on 10/19/2023 03:09 pmwhat a bizarre thread.NASA reviews involve SpaceX engineers. SpaceX doesn't have Falcon engineers dedicated to NASA. NASA and Air Force flights demand more preparation and more time from SpaceX engineers than any other flights. Hence the "dead zone" before any NASA/Air Force flight. This time/availability of SpaceX engineering force is contracted by NASA/Air Force.The BS about "data" is BS.It's only bizarre if you haven't read it properly ;-)
The only practical reason for NASA review delay (i.e. extra work) is some out of family event during (one of) previous Falcon launch, which SpaceX team has to process and to wrap some "satisfactory story" for NASA review committee.
But once a rocket has launched many times, and the manufacturer has addressed the potential problems found in prior NASA reviews, it would seem the chance of a NASA review catching something the manufacturer missed would be slight.
It would be interesting to know what these reviews uncover. In theory another set of eyes on the data can uncover things the developers may have missed.One could imagine that the initial few reviews of a new rocket type would be the most valuable. NASA of course has experience with a wide variety of rockets that have collectively developed many different issues over the years. These issues could easily be potential problems the manufacturer has not yet thought of or encountered.But once a rocket has launched many times, and the manufacturer has addressed the potential problems found in prior NASA reviews, it would seem the chance of a NASA review catching something the manufacturer missed would be slight.
Quote from: LouScheffer on 10/24/2023 09:02 pmBut once a rocket has launched many times, and the manufacturer has addressed the potential problems found in prior NASA reviews, it would seem the chance of a NASA review catching something the manufacturer missed would be slight.I'm not sure it matters how slight the risk is - the owner of the risk (in this case NASA) is going to want to assess any new data themselves. Or at least, review any assessment by the launch provider. Even if just to see that there isn't any significant new data. I would if I were them.
Quote from: LouScheffer on 10/24/2023 09:02 pmIt would be interesting to know what these reviews uncover. In theory another set of eyes on the data can uncover things the developers may have missed.One could imagine that the initial few reviews of a new rocket type would be the most valuable. NASA of course has experience with a wide variety of rockets that have collectively developed many different issues over the years. These issues could easily be potential problems the manufacturer has not yet thought of or encountered.But once a rocket has launched many times, and the manufacturer has addressed the potential problems found in prior NASA reviews, it would seem the chance of a NASA review catching something the manufacturer missed would be slight.I'm not sure it matters how slight the risk is - the owner of the risk (in this case NASA) is going to want to assess any new data themselves. Or at least, review any assessment by the launch provider. Even if just to see that there isn't any significant new data. I would if I were them.But that's not really what this thread is about.
Quote from: LouScheffer on 10/24/2023 09:02 pmBut once a rocket has launched many times, and the manufacturer has addressed the potential problems found in prior NASA reviews, it would seem the chance of a NASA review catching something the manufacturer missed would be slight.That assumes the vehicle and its operations are static, which is not the case with Falcon 9.
Quote from: steveleach on 10/25/2023 11:07 amQuote from: LouScheffer on 10/24/2023 09:02 pmIt would be interesting to know what these reviews uncover. In theory another set of eyes on the data can uncover things the developers may have missed.One could imagine that the initial few reviews of a new rocket type would be the most valuable. NASA of course has experience with a wide variety of rockets that have collectively developed many different issues over the years. These issues could easily be potential problems the manufacturer has not yet thought of or encountered.But once a rocket has launched many times, and the manufacturer has addressed the potential problems found in prior NASA reviews, it would seem the chance of a NASA review catching something the manufacturer missed would be slight.I'm not sure it matters how slight the risk is - the owner of the risk (in this case NASA) is going to want to assess any new data themselves. Or at least, review any assessment by the launch provider. Even if just to see that there isn't any significant new data. I would if I were them.But that's not really what this thread is about.I think that it's really what this thread is about.1. SpaceX also owns the risk here and it was arguably higher than NASA's on this flight.2. I doubt that the insurers reviewed the data for Viasat's recent Falcon Heavy launch.3. I doubt that a NASA data review at this point increases the chance of success or NASA's understanding of the chance of success. Maybe a couple of years ago it did.
The thread is about delaying a Starlink launch until after a NASA launch so that you can say the data is not available, rather than not having the time to review it. You don't use the data either way.It is not about whether it is worth reviewing it if it is available and you have the time.
Quote from: steveleach on 10/25/2023 06:09 pmThe thread is about delaying a Starlink launch until after a NASA launch so that you can say the data is not available, rather than not having the time to review it. You don't use the data either way.It is not about whether it is worth reviewing it if it is available and you have the time.You don't use the DETAILED review either way. But you have plenty of time to review perhaps the most important piece of information - did the rocket place the payload into the intended orbit.A successful flight is one of the three main requirements for certification. One of the others, having a "Post Flight Operations/Anomaly Resolution Process" should be knowable in advance. Only the third element, "NASA Flight Margin Verification" might not be able to complete in time.
......This entire discussion going on in this thread revolves around the fallacy of believing that you might miss an issue that crops up conveniently "only" in the last planned mission before an important NASA mission:...
Quote from: woods170 on 10/25/2023 11:42 am......This entire discussion going on in this thread revolves around the fallacy of believing that you might miss an issue that crops up conveniently "only" in the last planned mission before an important NASA mission:...I think you have it backwards.The question of this thread is whether you believe in the fallacy that delaying planned launch n-1 somehow benefits launch nEdit: removed most of the quote and left only the relevant section I'm responding to.
Quote from: edzieba on 10/25/2023 09:40 amQuote from: LouScheffer on 10/24/2023 09:02 pmBut once a rocket has launched many times, and the manufacturer has addressed the potential problems found in prior NASA reviews, it would seem the chance of a NASA review catching something the manufacturer missed would be slight.That assumes the vehicle and its operations are static, which is not the case with Falcon 9.That doesn't change the fact that delaying the "less important" launch till after the high value launch only reduces the amount of data the high value launch has to work with.This is purely and entirely a CYA exercise.
Quote from: mn on 10/26/2023 04:06 pmQuote from: woods170 on 10/25/2023 11:42 am......This entire discussion going on in this thread revolves around the fallacy of believing that you might miss an issue that crops up conveniently "only" in the last planned mission before an important NASA mission:...I think you have it backwards.The question of this thread is whether you believe in the fallacy that delaying planned launch n-1 somehow benefits launch nEdit: removed most of the quote and left only the relevant section I'm responding to.Emphasis mine.NASA clearly believes in that so-called "fallacy". They have now allowed SpaceX to delay planned "launch n-1", to let "launch n" go first, at least three times (Crew-5, Crew-6 and Psyche).From the viewpoint of NASA "launch n" clearly benefits from delaying planned "launch n-1". Specifically because it allows "launch n" to fly on schedule, instead of running the risk of being delayed while waiting for planned "launch n-1" to actually launch.There's your "somehow benefits".Not everything revolves around decreasing risk thru data review/data analysis.
It was said that the launch was delayed because if it launches they would be required to review the data and there would not be sufficient time to review, and therefore it is better to delay launch n-1. That is what was claimed and that is what we are discussing. (Whether or not this is true is irrelevant to our discussion, we are just discussing the logic behind such a decision)
NASA clearly believes in that so-called "fallacy". They have now allowed SpaceX to delay planned "launch n-1", to let "launch n" go first, at least three times (Crew-5, Crew-6 and Psyche).From the viewpoint of NASA "launch n" clearly benefits from delaying planned "launch n-1". Specifically because it allows "launch n" to fly on schedule, instead of running the risk of being delayed while waiting for planned "launch n-1" to actually launch.There's your "somehow benefits".Not everything revolves around decreasing risk thru data review/data analysis.
Quote from: meekGee on 10/25/2023 04:23 pmQuote from: edzieba on 10/25/2023 09:40 amQuote from: LouScheffer on 10/24/2023 09:02 pmBut once a rocket has launched many times, and the manufacturer has addressed the potential problems found in prior NASA reviews, it would seem the chance of a NASA review catching something the manufacturer missed would be slight.That assumes the vehicle and its operations are static, which is not the case with Falcon 9.That doesn't change the fact that delaying the "less important" launch till after the high value launch only reduces the amount of data the high value launch has to work with.This is purely and entirely a CYA exercise.Emphasis mine.Which is not a bad thing, for two reasons:- Although there is large commonality between Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy, using single-stick Falcon 9 flight data to directly assess the risk of a 3-core FH launch is questionable. NASA is much more likely to assess Falcon Heavy launch risk by looking at Falcon Heavy flight data.- But, in the IMO unlikely case that NASA actually uses single-stick Falcon 9 flight data to assess FH launch risk, there is the fact that NASA already is in possession of a literal mountain of Falcon 9 flight data (courtesy of its very high flight rate). One launch less won't make a significant difference to the knowledge that NASA has in hand already.
Quote from: mn on 10/27/2023 10:54 amIt was said that the launch was delayed because if it launches they would be required to review the data and there would not be sufficient time to review, and therefore it is better to delay launch n-1. That is what was claimed and that is what we are discussing. (Whether or not this is true is irrelevant to our discussion, we are just discussing the logic behind such a decision)If its not true then the rest of the discussion is pretty pointless. Is there doubt about whether it is?
Quote from: dondar on 10/23/2023 08:21 pmThe only practical reason for NASA review delay (i.e. extra work) is some out of family event during (one of) previous Falcon launch, which SpaceX team has to process and to wrap some "satisfactory story" for NASA review committee.No, NASA does the data review.
Without debating the merits of a review, can we all agree that the following statement is true? IF (NASA mandates a review of any F9/FH mission prior to the NASA mission AND reviews take a known potential maximum time window ) THEN SpaceX cannot schedule any F9/FH missions in that time window prior to the scheduled NASA mission.
lol, they review reports prepared by SpaceX. .....
NASA has no say about other SpaceX flights.
dude. why? You write rather normal posts about NASA etc. every time SpaceX pops you go bananas. Why?
what is the size of Falcon 9 group in SpaceX? 10% of the initial size? 20%? they are squeezed by NASA reviews up and don't have spare eyes for the rest. You see typical "test" crunch. The mere idea about NASA controlling SpaceX flights in general is beyond bizarre. They can ask, but why?
Quote from: steveleach on 10/27/2023 12:28 pmQuote from: mn on 10/27/2023 10:54 amIt was said that the launch was delayed because if it launches they would be required to review the data and there would not be sufficient time to review, and therefore it is better to delay launch n-1. That is what was claimed and that is what we are discussing. (Whether or not this is true is irrelevant to our discussion, we are just discussing the logic behind such a decision)If its not true then the rest of the discussion is pretty pointless. Is there doubt about whether it is?Someone either in this thread or some other thread claimed that it was a SpaceX decision to delay and not NASA, sorry can't find that post right now.But if it's not true then it's just a hypothetical discussion, we've had plenty of those around here.Edit to add: Here is the source of the delay and reason given. Whatever this other poster posted somewhere that I can't find is apparently not correct.https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=50260.msg2530831#msg2530831
Quote from: mn on 10/27/2023 02:30 pmQuote from: steveleach on 10/27/2023 12:28 pmQuote from: mn on 10/27/2023 10:54 amIt was said that the launch was delayed because if it launches they would be required to review the data and there would not be sufficient time to review, and therefore it is better to delay launch n-1. That is what was claimed and that is what we are discussing. (Whether or not this is true is irrelevant to our discussion, we are just discussing the logic behind such a decision)If its not true then the rest of the discussion is pretty pointless. Is there doubt about whether it is?Someone either in this thread or some other thread claimed that it was a SpaceX decision to delay and not NASA, sorry can't find that post right now.But if it's not true then it's just a hypothetical discussion, we've had plenty of those around here.Edit to add: Here is the source of the delay and reason given. Whatever this other poster posted somewhere that I can't find is apparently not correct.https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=50260.msg2530831#msg2530831Delaying Starlink missions in favour of NASA missions has so far always been SpaceX decisions. At least one time such decision was made by SpaceX after a request from NASA. Not an order, but a request.
Also data review of previous F9 launches by LSP must be complete before proceeding with Psyche launch. This includes Starlink 7-4. Also, LSP asked for the Starlink 6-22 launch delay after weather scrub on October 9, until after Psyche, due to the same post launch analysis reason.
Yep, assuming LSP = "Launch Service Provider", it seems like a SpaceX decision.
Quote from: steveleach on 10/29/2023 10:20 pmYep, assuming LSP = "Launch Service Provider", it seems like a SpaceX decision.LSP = NASA's Launch Services Program.