3 ms·

> I can’t imagine this provides much in the way of useful information I can't really comprehend this statement, since it appears, in a spectacular fashion, tha

by nomel 1y ago

> I can’t imagine this provides much in the way of useful information I can't really comprehend this statement, since it appears, in a spectacular fashion, that there's some useful information to be learned involving the top half of the ship, especially the flammable bits that you can see burst out before igniting. A rocket ship isn't just its engines, it's a system, with all the bits of it being not only useful, but entirely necessary.

chneu 1y ago
This most likely points to a leak somewhere. So there isnt much valuable information to be learned here. They weren't able to test much. What they were hoping to test never got started.
- nomel 1y ago
  You're very clearly mistaken. I can tell you, with a very reasonable estimate, how much the information is worth: one launch cost + ground infrastructure, in cold hard cash, multiplied by the number of times the flawed design/process will cause it to reoccur.
  - chneu 1y ago
    A leaking fitting isn't really all that valuable. It happens. We're not talking about cold hard cash. The discussion is useful information.
    - nomel 1y ago
      Again, it's a system. Anything learned that prevents that system from literally disintegrating is of value to all components of the system. I'm sorry, but fittings don't just leak. It's not something that "just happens". A leaking fitting means a design or process flaw exists, and must be fixed, or the whole thing blows up again. It may not be interesting to you, but it's now very very interesting to every other team working at SpaceX, who just had all their shit blown to pieces. It's a (I hope this is obvious to you) critical component of the system, just as critical as, say, the control system and fuel pumps. Serious innovation may be required (yes, things like gaskets still involve PhD's), and was probably already required. It's really interesting seeing software perspectives of a hardware world. A mech-e would have a stroke reading your comments.
aqme28 1y ago
There is useful information in that "there is a possible leak at the top." But there are much cheaper ways to find that out. However, that is absolutely not what they were testing for. Whatever the test's purpose, this failed to actually test it.

by nomel 1y ago

chneu 1y ago

This most likely points to a leak somewhere. So there isnt much valuable information to be learned here. They weren't able to test much. What they were hoping to test never got started.

nomel 1y ago
You're very clearly mistaken. I can tell you, with a very reasonable estimate, how much the information is worth: one launch cost + ground infrastructure, in cold hard cash, multiplied by the number of times the flawed design/process will cause it to reoccur.
- chneu 1y ago
  A leaking fitting isn't really all that valuable. It happens. We're not talking about cold hard cash. The discussion is useful information.
  - nomel 1y ago
    Again, it's a system. Anything learned that prevents that system from literally disintegrating is of value to all components of the system. I'm sorry, but fittings don't just leak. It's not something that "just happens". A leaking fitting means a design or process flaw exists, and must be fixed, or the whole thing blows up again. It may not be interesting to you, but it's now very very interesting to every other team working at SpaceX, who just had all their shit blown to pieces. It's a (I hope this is obvious to you) critical component of the system, just as critical as, say, the control system and fuel pumps. Serious innovation may be required (yes, things like gaskets still involve PhD's), and was probably already required. It's really interesting seeing software perspectives of a hardware world. A mech-e would have a stroke reading your comments.

aqme28 1y ago

There is useful information in that "there is a possible leak at the top." But there are much cheaper ways to find that out. However, that is absolutely not what they were testing for. Whatever the test's purpose, this failed to actually test it.