5 ms·

I don’t mind failure and I understand there are going to be setbacks. I just wish they would fail faster. I love NASA and all they’ve done but 10 years of SLS w

I don’t mind failure and I understand there are going to be setbacks. I just wish they would fail faster. I love NASA and all they’ve done but 10 years of SLS without a launch makes me doubt this thing will ever get off the ground. With a new administration, I feel like we’re one setback away from the whole thing being cancelled.

tailspin2019 6y ago
> I don’t mind failure and I understand there are going to be setbacks. I just wish they would fail faster. I do agree with this. I just took issue with the lede being “rocket test fails” as if that’s a bad thing. The underlying points are all valid, speed, cost etc but a failed test is not the thing to be focussing the argument on in my view.
- maccam94 6y ago
  SLS proponents have been claiming that all of the extra time and money spent on process and formal verification would lead to a rocket that works without having to do lots of trial-and-error like SpaceX. Heck, even the name of the test campaign, the "Green Run," kind of reflects this hubris and shows that NASA expected the tests to largely be a formality.
  - jbay808 6y ago
    Doesn't a green run refer to a beginner level course? Like a practice ski hill?
    - maccam94 6y ago
      I didn't realize there was any other way to interpret it besides "getting green (successful) results for all of the tests" (there are 8 test stages planned). I think we're both wrong though: "The term “green” refers to the new hardware that will work together to power the stage, and “run” refers to operating all the components together simultaneously for the first time." --https://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/green-run-test-paves-way-for-nasa-moon-missions.html https://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/green-run-test-... I still think these tests should be run more than once though, the RS-25's were originally reusable anyway.

tailspin2019 6y ago

> I don’t mind failure and I understand there are going to be setbacks. I just wish they would fail faster. I do agree with this. I just took issue with the lede being “rocket test fails” as if that’s a bad thing. The underlying points are all valid, speed, cost etc but a failed test is not the thing to be focussing the argument on in my view.

maccam94 6y ago
SLS proponents have been claiming that all of the extra time and money spent on process and formal verification would lead to a rocket that works without having to do lots of trial-and-error like SpaceX. Heck, even the name of the test campaign, the "Green Run," kind of reflects this hubris and shows that NASA expected the tests to largely be a formality.
- jbay808 6y ago
  Doesn't a green run refer to a beginner level course? Like a practice ski hill?
  - maccam94 6y ago
    I didn't realize there was any other way to interpret it besides "getting green (successful) results for all of the tests" (there are 8 test stages planned). I think we're both wrong though: "The term “green” refers to the new hardware that will work together to power the stage, and “run” refers to operating all the components together simultaneously for the first time." --https://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/green-run-test-paves-way-for-nasa-moon-missions.html https://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/green-run-test-... I still think these tests should be run more than once though, the RS-25's were originally reusable anyway.