SpaceX F9 : Starlink v1.0 L7 : June 3/4, 2020 : Discussion

[FutureSpaceTourist]

L-2 weather forecast for Tuesday is 70% GO

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/SpaceXFleet/status/1262045213750628352

The recovery fleet is sheltering from Tropical Storm Arthur.

Ms. Tree and Ms. Chief are docked at the Port of Morehead City. GO Quest is arriving at Cape Fear and OCISLY is circling just offshore nearby.

[gongora]

https://twitter.com/nextspaceflight/status/1262161843407085568

SpaceX's next launch will have crew onboard. The Starlink launch is in fact now postponed until after Demo-2 due to not enough time to turnaround OCISLY.

JRTI still has several weeks of trials ahead of it before it will be ready.

[Vettedrmr]

Thanks for the update; I was hoping Go fever wouldn't rear its ugly head, and it didn't.

Good call, SpaceX.

Have a good one,
Mike

[Joffan]

Just a shame SpaceX couldn't keep their Sunday slot. Atlas would very likely have been fine launching Monday.

[PM3]

Just a shame SpaceX couldn't keep their Sunday slot. Atlas would very likely have been fine launching Monday.

On the other hand: The slightest glitch on the Starlink launch (fifth flight of a booster again) could have delayed SpX-DM2 due to further investigation. This schedule risk is now off the table.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/spacex/status/1262367345185558528

Standing down from the Starlink mission, due to tropical storm Arthur, until after launch of Crew Demo-2

[Nomadd]

  I have to wonder about the loss of one old booster compared to the cost of delaying the whole system for two more weeks. Maybe they can catch up, but it seems like launch opportunities is the pacer right now.
 A barge is going to have an unexpected problem eventually, and this faith in everything going to plan is going to come back and bite them.

[envy887]

I have to wonder about the loss of one old booster compared to the cost of delaying the whole system for two more weeks. Maybe they can catch up, but it seems like launch opportunities is the pacer right now.

Per the Starlink tracking thread, they need Launch 7 and one of either the 3rd set from Launch 5 to precess to the correct plane, or Launch 8 to insert directly to that plane. If the latter race is decided by less than a few weeks, delaying Launch 7 might have no effect.

A barge is going to have an unexpected problem eventually, and this faith in everything going to plan is going to come back and bite them.

Probably one reason why they are updating JRTI to help out.

[Robotbeat]

Just a shame SpaceX couldn't keep their Sunday slot. Atlas would very likely have been fine launching Monday.

On the other hand: The slightest glitch on the Starlink launch (fifth flight of a booster again) could have delayed SpX-DM2 due to further investigation. This schedule risk is now off the table.

But that kind of logic reduces commercial crew safety.

[Robotbeat]

Just a shame SpaceX couldn't keep their Sunday slot. Atlas would very likely have been fine launching Monday.

On the other hand: The slightest glitch on the Starlink launch (fifth flight of a booster again) could have delayed SpX-DM2 due to further investigation. This schedule risk is now off the table.

But that kind of logic reduces commercial crew safety.

If one launch pushed by weather concerns after DM2 reduces commercial crew safety, then surely just one launch also reduces safety and they should have two.  Actually, scratch that - they should have three...

Where does postponing a non-crew launch prior to a crewed launch not reduce commercial crew safety?

No, I’m saying that if one of the arguments for postponing Starlink is that it might fail (exposing a potential underlying problem in Falcon 9), that’s effectively arguing for schedule risk management by putting blinders on to potential crew risk problems.

I’m not arguing they HAVE to get more launch statistics now; if they have to delay for *other* reasons, that’s fine.  I’m arguing against risk-management-by-self-deception as that’s clearly a poor safety culture.

[Lars-J]

They pushed the launch back because DM-2 is more important. (delaying it would have greater consequences than delaying a Starlink launch)

Not because they are worried that launching this Starlink launch would expose a F9 problem.

[Nomadd]

Just a shame SpaceX couldn't keep their Sunday slot. Atlas would very likely have been fine launching Monday.

On the other hand: The slightest glitch on the Starlink launch (fifth flight of a booster again) could have delayed SpX-DM2 due to further investigation. This schedule risk is now off the table.

But that kind of logic reduces commercial crew safety.

It's not a logic you'd ever express publicly, but it's one you might have if you think the customer is ridiculously overcautious.

[abaddon]

No, I’m saying that if one of the arguments for postponing Starlink is that it might fail (exposing a potential underlying problem in Falcon 9), that’s effectively arguing for schedule risk management by putting blinders on to potential crew risk problems.

Sure, and re-reading your post, I see you are saying "the idea" as you quote it above, if the delay were done to assure schedule, would be a reduction in safety, which I can get behind.

[DistantTemple]

Its so important, that making sure everyone involved in DM2 has 100% one focus, and no distractions.

So in June there seems to be Starlink 8, GPS3, and Starlink 9. No Idea when Starlink 10 was planned.
So with SL8 locked and loaded, and waiting, SX must have been working on SL9 already, and in 3 weeks, could thy be preparing SL10 !

Could we see a record pad turn-around, and/or 3SL launches, or 4 launches in one month? Or other records. If both drone ships are ready by June, that could facilitate such antics! :-0

[zubenelgenubi]

Re: the back and forth about how it would have been better for the Starlink launch to proceed on Sunday, May 17:

In the L-2 forecast, up-thread here, the forecast for May 17 had a 20% chance of a launch site weather violation.  However, in the "Additional Risk Criteria" lists the risk imposed by the weather in the booster landing zone as "High."

Opinion follows: Even if May 17 had been free to launch, SpaceX may have chosen not to launch because the chances of a successful booster recovery appeared to have been low.  TS Arthur certainly had the sea churned up on the 17th.

[PM3]

Just a shame SpaceX couldn't keep their Sunday slot. Atlas would very likely have been fine launching Monday.

On the other hand: The slightest glitch on the Starlink launch (fifth flight of a booster again) could have delayed SpX-DM2 due to further investigation. This schedule risk is now off the table.

Just to clarify:

1. In no way I wanted to suggest that this was a reason to postpone Starlink. (SpaceX would not reason that way.) It is just an inevitable consequence of doing so.

2. I explicitly mentioned that this is a fifth flight. As you know, recently there has been the problem with a fifth-flight booster which was solely related to engine refurbishment. Such problem cannot happen with DM-2, but it could happen with Starlink v1.0-L7. Missing the chance of such problems to happen does not compromize DM-2 saftey.

Bottom line: This Starlink slip DOES reduce the schedule risk of SpX-DM2 (this is what I wanted to point out), but there is no reason to believe that it does compromise DM-2 safety.

[wannamoonbase]

Its so important, that making sure everyone involved in DM2 has 100% one focus, and no distractions.

So in June there seems to be Starlink 8, GPS3, and Starlink 9. No Idea when Starlink 10 was planned.
So with SL8 locked and loaded, and waiting, SX must have been working on SL9 already, and in 3 weeks, could thy be preparing SL10 !

Could we see a record pad turn-around, and/or 3SL launches, or 4 launches in one month? Or other records. If both drone ships are ready by June, that could facilitate such antics! :-0

Yep, will depend on recovery vessels.  Not a bad problem to have.

[IvanDogovich]

What happens to the booster that was on the pad, now that its set to launch in June?  Do they take it down and bring it back to the barn?

[woods170]

What happens to the booster that was on the pad, now that its set to launch in June?  Do they take it down and bring it back to the barn?

Yes. F9 will be rolled back into the barn for weather protection of rocket and payload.

Payload stack (including fairing) will also be de-mated and stored in vertical (upright) position. A Starlink stack doesn't like being stored horizontally for prolonged periods of time (sagging of the stack is just one concern).