5 ms·
SpaceX also had failed a mission due to a 3rd party strut failing the spec. > The strut that we believe failed was designed and material certified to handle 10
by jve 8y ago
SpaceX also had failed a mission due to a 3rd party strut failing the spec.
> The strut that we believe failed was designed and material certified to handle 10,000 lbs of force, but failed at 2,000 lbs, a five-fold difference.
https://www.spacex.com/news/2015/07/20/crs-7-investigation-update https://www.spacex.com/news/2015/07/20/crs-7-investigation-u...
- T-A 8y agoA closer analogy was the Proton launch failure and subsequent suspension of launches in 2017, after it turned out that Voronezh Mechanical Plant had switched materials in the engines and falsified the documentation. https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/01/russia-recalling-dozens-of-rocket-engines-sacks-head-motor-builder/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/01/russia-recalling-doz...
- Rebelgecko 8y agoThat is a more charitable explanation than the one from NASA's independent review team. They categorized the problem as a design flaw since SpaceX didn't take into account the part manufacturer's recommended safety margin and other limitations