3 ms·

If you write a spec you've got to have some process to verify your stuff meets that spec. Otherwise you just wrote a fucking dream journal.

s1artibartfast 4y ago
Indeed, and one way to verify you meet the spec is to test it, which they did and found it to be deficient. Having done so, they decided to improve their process. This is the definition of learning from your mistakes
- phkahler 4y ago
  Sadly, or interestingly, that was not an engineering lesson but a human one - don't trust the supplier. Framed this way, I'm not surprised younger Elon's company missed it.
- bumby 4y ago
  This is an really optimistic outlook. One way to test the rocket is also to see if it fails when humans are aboard. But it may not be the best way to balance risk and what you learn. It would have been much more economical to test a coupon of the material upon receipt, like what is considered standard practice throughout aerospace companies. Or, like you said, you can blow up a rocket and launch pad instead. Same result, different risk profiles.
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    I don't think anyone would argue it would have been better had they known better and done things right the first. The question is how you transition from the state of not knowing to knowing. If you have poor processes and a lack of knoledge, how do you get better? In this specific instance, the root cause analysis and remediation are vastly more complicated that presented in this thread. It is not like SpaceX wasnt doing testing on incoming materials at all or ignorant of the concept.
    - bumby 4y ago
      You’re right. Like most failures of this type, it’s rarely simple and these forums are super conducive to long-form discussion. They did checks, but they were inadequate. Regarding knowing if you have a poor process or not, it depends on the uniqueness of your problem. For proteins that are relatively common, like material checks, you can shorten your learning process by looking at other organizations that have been through it for decades. For more exotic non-standard problems, you might have to learn the hard way.

s1artibartfast 4y ago

Indeed, and one way to verify you meet the spec is to test it, which they did and found it to be deficient. Having done so, they decided to improve their process. This is the definition of learning from your mistakes

phkahler 4y ago
Sadly, or interestingly, that was not an engineering lesson but a human one - don't trust the supplier. Framed this way, I'm not surprised younger Elon's company missed it.
bumby 4y ago
This is an really optimistic outlook. One way to test the rocket is also to see if it fails when humans are aboard. But it may not be the best way to balance risk and what you learn. It would have been much more economical to test a coupon of the material upon receipt, like what is considered standard practice throughout aerospace companies. Or, like you said, you can blow up a rocket and launch pad instead. Same result, different risk profiles.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  I don't think anyone would argue it would have been better had they known better and done things right the first. The question is how you transition from the state of not knowing to knowing. If you have poor processes and a lack of knoledge, how do you get better? In this specific instance, the root cause analysis and remediation are vastly more complicated that presented in this thread. It is not like SpaceX wasnt doing testing on incoming materials at all or ignorant of the concept.
  - bumby 4y ago
    You’re right. Like most failures of this type, it’s rarely simple and these forums are super conducive to long-form discussion. They did checks, but they were inadequate. Regarding knowing if you have a poor process or not, it depends on the uniqueness of your problem. For proteins that are relatively common, like material checks, you can shorten your learning process by looking at other organizations that have been through it for decades. For more exotic non-standard problems, you might have to learn the hard way.