3 ms·
That might or might not have been relevant, and the fact that something was changed as a consquence of the investigation argues strongly for the latter. I do n
by mannykannot 7y ago
That might or might not have been relevant, and the fact that something was changed as a consquence of the investigation argues strongly for the latter.
I do not understand the effort being put into arguing that this failure was largely inconsequential because it was a test. Clearly - and rightly - neither SpaceX nor NASA took it that way.
- gpm 7y ago> I do not understand the effort being put into arguing that this failure was largely inconsequential because it was a test. That's not what I'm attempting to argue... and why my post starts with a disclaimer that I'm not trying to argue that. I just think it's important to keep the facts straight.
- mannykannot 7y agoIt is also important to identify which facts are relevant.
- gpm 7y agoAnd yet it's still important to not misstate facts regardless of whether or not they are relevant, because other people will take those supposed facts and apply them in other ways then you did.
- mannykannot 7y agoAnd yet it's still important to not merely present facts regardless of whether or not they are relevant, because other people will take those facts and suppose they are relevant. Note the issue that unites these two statements - it is relevance. A test does not have to be a simulation of actual use to be relevant.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- gpm 7y agoLet me say this in a different way. As soon as you misstate a fact in a public forum where people might not know the truth of the matter, that misstatement becomes relevant to many readers. Because otherwise people will read your supposed fact, assume it is true, and apply it elsewhere. That doesn't make it necessarily relevant to the original point of whether or not it was an issue that needed to be taken seriously, but that's why I explicitly started my post by stating so. I honestly can't believe that you're defending a serious misstatement of the conditions of the test on the internet by saying "well it doesn't matter that the premise of my post was wrong". Of course it matters, even if I agree with your conclusion anyways.
- ceejayoz 7y agoCould you clarify what fact I misstated? The capsule blew up. True. The capsule blew up after already having visited the ISS. Also true. Wasn't much more to my post.
- gpm 7y agoNot you, mannykannot, the person I replied to in this thread. > the failure of a test conducted within operational parameters should be treated as seriously as a failure in actual use. Everything before the "should be".
- mannykannot 7y agoThe premise of my post is not wrong, because if you read what I actually wrote, you will see that nowhere do I state that this test was conducted entirely as if it was a real manned mission to the ISS - of course, it wasn't, including for all sorts of facts that do not have anything to do with the previous history of the capsule. What I actually set out, in my first post, is a principle for regarding tests as being as significant as real operations, and it so happens that this principle still largely holds even when a test deviates to some extent from a real operation. I did not state this obvious extension because I did not anticipate a pointlessly pedantic response. Until the failure had been diagnosed, it would have been correct to consider whether the problem was entirely the consequence of the capsule's previous history, but by now, we are all - even you - agreed that the test did reveal a potentially serious problem that could be fixed. It turns out, fortunately, that tests do not have to be equivalent to live operations to be useful, because relevance does not depend on them being so (as this case demonstrates.)