5 ms·

So 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

So 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 ago
  Scenario 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 ago
    I see, thanks for explaining!