4 ms·

Just the opposite. This is engineer-driven testing.

by kbelder 4y ago

jackcviers3 4y ago
[flagged]
- outworlder 4y ago
  Yeah. It's one thing to blow up during test firings, or when trying completely novel maneuvers like the belly flop. It's another thing entirely to do that during stage separation. Sure, historically separation has been risky, but it's nothing novel. They didn't seem to expect the vehicle to survive past that anyways. There would be a delay even if another vehicle was ready to go - the launch site is a wreck.
  - trey-jones 4y ago
    If you were thrown by the explosion (automated termination, not some catastrophic failure), then you weren't listening to any of the media around the launch. This was a successful mission, gathering data for future launches. Expectations were set appropriately, so I think it's really just your problem for not listening. In addition, this isn't publicly funded, so it would seem if some of the people get spooked by not understanding the goals of a launch correctly, then it doesn't really matter that much.
    - outworlder 4y ago
      > In addition, this isn't publicly funded, so it would seem if some of the people get spooked by not understanding the goals of a launch correctly, then it doesn't really matter that much. It does matter that we are scattering debris over a large area for no reason. It does not matter if that was done by the flight termination system or other mechanism.
- RandallBrown 4y ago
  It wasn't a catastrophic failure, it was self destructed.
throwawaymobule 4y ago
it's amazing how well this works for them. I think this is the main reason they can crank through development so fast. Wish this sort of development was more common.
- millerm 4y ago
  The grand applause when they blew it up showed that it was a success.
  - dormento 4y ago
    Well to be faaaaaair, they were properly "primed" to applaud and call it a success, no matter what happened. But yeah, infinite money does that to you: you can operate in "fail fast" mode and obtain results you could not otherwise.

Just the opposite. This is engineer-driven testing.

jackcviers3 4y ago

[flagged]

outworlder 4y ago
Yeah. It's one thing to blow up during test firings, or when trying completely novel maneuvers like the belly flop. It's another thing entirely to do that during stage separation. Sure, historically separation has been risky, but it's nothing novel. They didn't seem to expect the vehicle to survive past that anyways. There would be a delay even if another vehicle was ready to go - the launch site is a wreck.
- trey-jones 4y ago
  If you were thrown by the explosion (automated termination, not some catastrophic failure), then you weren't listening to any of the media around the launch. This was a successful mission, gathering data for future launches. Expectations were set appropriately, so I think it's really just your problem for not listening. In addition, this isn't publicly funded, so it would seem if some of the people get spooked by not understanding the goals of a launch correctly, then it doesn't really matter that much.
  - outworlder 4y ago
    > In addition, this isn't publicly funded, so it would seem if some of the people get spooked by not understanding the goals of a launch correctly, then it doesn't really matter that much. It does matter that we are scattering debris over a large area for no reason. It does not matter if that was done by the flight termination system or other mechanism.
RandallBrown 4y ago
It wasn't a catastrophic failure, it was self destructed.

throwawaymobule 4y ago

it's amazing how well this works for them. I think this is the main reason they can crank through development so fast. Wish this sort of development was more common.

millerm 4y ago
The grand applause when they blew it up showed that it was a success.
- dormento 4y ago
  Well to be faaaaaair, they were properly "primed" to applaud and call it a success, no matter what happened. But yeah, infinite money does that to you: you can operate in "fail fast" mode and obtain results you could not otherwise.