Let me refer you to the rational wiki on the phrase "just asking questions" https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions

The way you framed your question comes off, to paraphrase the wiki, as an attempt to make a wild accusation socially acceptable. Given your response here, I don't get the impression that this was intentional, but given just your original post I absolutely did get the impression that it was intended as an accusation.

---

To attempt to answer the question, the launch weather report [1] does take into account solar activity, and rated it as a low risk. SpaceX takes a more detailed look at the weather than what's in the public report too. However that report almost certainly only counted solar weather during the launch itself - I don't know of public documentation either way towards them looking at post-launch weather as a launch criteria.

[1] https://www.patrick.spaceforce.mil/Portals/14/Weather/Falcon...

"So…we have the Space Weather Prediction Center [0] and raw data from NOAA for this exact purpose. Does SpaceX not review the data / warnings before launch?" is not just asking questions; it's full-on passive-aggressive.

Being pseudo-anonymous and safely behind a screen depersonalizes the experience enough that we get tempted to take swipes for some reason (I do too), and it diminishes the experience on places like HN especially where we aspire to do better than reddit or /.

The best test for this kind of thing is "If I were speaking to the responsible person face-to-face, would I say it this way?" Because then the question becomes "Do I want to hurt this person?"

Fine, I'll be direct. Why does it appear that SpaceX failed at risk management in the presence of readily available data to suggest delaying launch?

You don't know what SpaceX's risk models show. They likely have to balance launch delay costs with launch risk costs, among other variables.

spacex isn't a person.

The US government says otherwise

> Who Is A United States Person?

>United States Person. United States person means United States citizens (including minor children); United States residents; entities, including but not limited to, corporations, partnerships, or limited liability companies created or organized in the United States or under the laws of the United States; and trusts or estates formed under the laws of the United States.

https://www.fincen.gov/who-united-states-person

(facepalm)

I wonder if there was additional unannounced payload. SpaceX frequently seems to launch spy satellites. It may be that other cargo timing took a higher priority…

Also curious if atmospheric warming is a predictable side effect of one of these storms or if we’re just learning about it.

Space weather is much-studied but not always predictable (although I think particular situation wasn't too surprising).

Certain people high up in the org get irritable over launch delays. Sometimes others think the risk isn't worth the yelling and go ahead in less than perfect conditions.

You're putting an emotional ("get irritated") label on it, but there are no doubt risk vs return evaluations made for these situations. They go beyond just raw "irritation" I'm sure.

I think you’re unduly discounting the influence of emotions on leaders. IMO there are many executives who are for more driven by their personal feelings than we would like to believe.

Presumably you haven’t seen any of the “exited” emails. Or seen some of the petty reasons people get fired for at that company.

You could have phrased it: "how does SpaceX review...?"

  > I think it's valid to wonder what the criteria is for a launch.

SpaceX operates on the very edge of what is possible. It seems very likely that they saw this as an opportunity to check how viable a Starlink launch is during these conditions. And better to do it with a 40-sat launch on Falcon than on a 300-sat launch on Starship. This storm was an opportunity to learn and to refine the launch criteria.