3 ms·

> significant problem had escaped all efforts to eliminate unnecessary risks up to that point. This test was part of the process of identifying and eliminatin

by shkkmo 7y ago

> significant problem had escaped all efforts to eliminate unnecessary risks up to that point. This test was part of the process of identifying and eliminating those risks. There is no difference between a failure during a test and a failure during operation, in terms of identifying needed changes in space craft design. There is a difference when it comes to evaluating the design and testing process of the company. SpaceX seems to be very good at balancing moving quickly with design, then testing safely, using those test to find weaknesses and learning from their failures to iterate rapidly. Despite some early failures, it seems SpaceX is rapidly on its way to having the best launch safety record in the industry.

mannykannot 7y ago
All I am saying is that by the time you are flying the thing, you should have high confidence in it. A failure at that point should lead to a serious reevaluation of that confidence, regardless of whether the failure occurs on a test or an operation (the exception being those tests that are to destruction, or at least well outside the operational envelope, and only then if the failure occurs at about the point you expect, or beyond it.) I agree that SpaceX is looking very competent.
- shkkmo 7y ago
  > All I am saying is that by the time you are flying the thing, you should have high confidence in it. It seems like there is a balance between the level of confidence you achieve prior to a flight test, the costs of a failed test, and the speed at which you can implement and iterate designs. > A failure at that point should lead to a serious reevaluation of that confidence, If, as in this case, the failure is due to non-considered risk, you certainly want to make changes to the assumptions you make during the design process in the future (in additional to the changes you make in your current design.) I don't think you need to generally question your confidence in your components that have not only passed all their operational tests, but have been used successfully to complete operational missions.

by shkkmo 7y ago

mannykannot 7y ago

All I am saying is that by the time you are flying the thing, you should have high confidence in it. A failure at that point should lead to a serious reevaluation of that confidence, regardless of whether the failure occurs on a test or an operation (the exception being those tests that are to destruction, or at least well outside the operational envelope, and only then if the failure occurs at about the point you expect, or beyond it.) I agree that SpaceX is looking very competent.

shkkmo 7y ago
> All I am saying is that by the time you are flying the thing, you should have high confidence in it. It seems like there is a balance between the level of confidence you achieve prior to a flight test, the costs of a failed test, and the speed at which you can implement and iterate designs. > A failure at that point should lead to a serious reevaluation of that confidence, If, as in this case, the failure is due to non-considered risk, you certainly want to make changes to the assumptions you make during the design process in the future (in additional to the changes you make in your current design.) I don't think you need to generally question your confidence in your components that have not only passed all their operational tests, but have been used successfully to complete operational missions.