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.
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.
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.
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.