4 ms·
If your space program has "simple" errors, then you are incompetent. These have to be stomped out beforehand. Is this amateur hour?
by aredox 1y ago
If your space program has "simple" errors, then you are incompetent. These have to be stomped out beforehand. Is this amateur hour?
- madaxe_again 1y agoFalcon 9 seems pretty competently run.
- Balgair 1y agoSo then we'd have to assume that the error was not a 'simple' one. Which is a lot harder to find and fix, almost by definition. I mean, look, this isn't a good sign for spacex. Whatever problem there is, clearly it's hard to find and fix. Could be some alloy, could be some pressure sensor, could be the whole management chain. Who knows yet. But we very much do know this isn't a good sign.
- mulmen 1y ago> So then we'd have to assume that the error was not a 'simple' one. Why?
- tsimionescu 1y agoScenario 1 is Starship is run as competently as Falcon 9. If this is true, then basic errors won't have escaped the QA process, just as they don't for Falcon 9, the safest rocket ever flown. So, we would conclude that the issue must have been a complex one that eluded the competent QA process. Second scenario, Starship is not run as competently as Falcon 9. That is also a huge problem, because it's very hard to fix people and procesa problems in general.
- mulmen 1y agoI see, thanks for explaining!
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- mulmen 1y agoStarship is not yet operational. It is in development. This is “before hand”.