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