4 ms·

You've been downvoted but clearly heavy objects falling over in workshops where workers might be squished is not meant to be part of their corner-cutting rapid

You've been downvoted but clearly heavy objects falling over in workshops where workers might be squished is not meant to be part of their corner-cutting rapid prototyping approach to rocket design. That's an industrial accident, not prototyping. Rockets blowing up on launch pads is fine, that's to be expected. But that's not what this is.

HarryHirsch 6y ago
I just wish some of the downvoters would give their reasons. To me, the Starship project is unusually prone to safety incidents, which tells a lot about organizational culture.
- bigbubba 6y ago
  This is the first incident I've heard of that seems concerning, but admittedly I've not followed the matter closely. I've heard they had some incidents on the pad, or the one they crashed earlier this week, but neither of those concern me since failure in those scenarios is obviously something they plan for (nobody would be nearby.)
  - HarryHirsch 6y ago
    I found that tank testing incident where a fuel tank exploded during static pressure testing below rated pressure extremely worrying. Pressure vessels are well understood, they aren't supposed to fail like that. Don't they examine their welds at Space X?
    - bigbubba 6y ago
      Such a failure seems reasonable to me, such a pressure vessel obviously needs to be as light as possible to maximize payload. But making it lighter will make it weaker. And even today there are limits to computer analysis, hence why they would do pressure tests at all; if the models were foolproof then why would anybody test pressure vessels? Pressure vessels are tested because their danger is well understood. Testing would be a waste of time if outcomes were certain, so failure during tests is not concerning. (This rocket falling over was presumably not part of a test to see whether it will fall over.)
    - interestica 6y ago
      I mean, that's why they test? Can one presume that there was an improvement based on that outcome?
- virgilp 6y ago
  I didn't downvote you but you make a lot of patently false claims, which at best show you're ignorant of what SpaceX is doing. As others have said: - You say "some domains don't lend themselves to rapid prototyping" - yet SpaceX's results speak for itself - You say "unusually prone to safety incidents" - can you list 5 of them so that we know what you're talking about? "testing incident where a fuel tank exploded" - that's literally their designed operating mode, nobody was put in harm's way, you're basically disagreeing with how they operate (should have the humbleness to consider that their impressive results so far might indicate they're right and you're wrong) - You say "they can't even take a rocket out safely, how are they hoping to achieve anything" just after even their competitors praised them for the impressive results. etc. Is it really surprising that you get downvoted?

HarryHirsch 6y ago

I just wish some of the downvoters would give their reasons. To me, the Starship project is unusually prone to safety incidents, which tells a lot about organizational culture.

bigbubba 6y ago
This is the first incident I've heard of that seems concerning, but admittedly I've not followed the matter closely. I've heard they had some incidents on the pad, or the one they crashed earlier this week, but neither of those concern me since failure in those scenarios is obviously something they plan for (nobody would be nearby.)
- HarryHirsch 6y ago
  I found that tank testing incident where a fuel tank exploded during static pressure testing below rated pressure extremely worrying. Pressure vessels are well understood, they aren't supposed to fail like that. Don't they examine their welds at Space X?
  - bigbubba 6y ago
    Such a failure seems reasonable to me, such a pressure vessel obviously needs to be as light as possible to maximize payload. But making it lighter will make it weaker. And even today there are limits to computer analysis, hence why they would do pressure tests at all; if the models were foolproof then why would anybody test pressure vessels? Pressure vessels are tested because their danger is well understood. Testing would be a waste of time if outcomes were certain, so failure during tests is not concerning. (This rocket falling over was presumably not part of a test to see whether it will fall over.)
  - interestica 6y ago
    I mean, that's why they test? Can one presume that there was an improvement based on that outcome?
virgilp 6y ago
I didn't downvote you but you make a lot of patently false claims, which at best show you're ignorant of what SpaceX is doing. As others have said: - You say "some domains don't lend themselves to rapid prototyping" - yet SpaceX's results speak for itself - You say "unusually prone to safety incidents" - can you list 5 of them so that we know what you're talking about? "testing incident where a fuel tank exploded" - that's literally their designed operating mode, nobody was put in harm's way, you're basically disagreeing with how they operate (should have the humbleness to consider that their impressive results so far might indicate they're right and you're wrong) - You say "they can't even take a rocket out safely, how are they hoping to achieve anything" just after even their competitors praised them for the impressive results. etc. Is it really surprising that you get downvoted?