• TWeaK
      link
      fedilink
      English
      209 months ago

      Yes but this sort of test shouldn’t fail, and it absolutely shouldn’t fail twice in a row.

      • @TheControlled
        link
        169 months ago

        Well now they know there’s something wrong elsewhere don’t they? They don’t exactly want this to happen, armchair-engineer.

        • TWeaK
          link
          fedilink
          English
          149 months ago

          I am an engineer, specifically a test & commissioning engineer, but the chair I’m in right now doesn’t have arms.

          Yes, the purpose of the test is to confirm things are working correctly, but for this kind of test you’re supposed to make absolutely sure you have all your ducks in a row before you proceed.

            • TWeaK
              link
              fedilink
              English
              209 months ago

              For all you know I could be. I’m certainly showing more technical expertise than you are these last few comments. You seem to just be arguing for the sake of it, and not really contributing anything of value to the discussion.

              No one needs to be that involved with this to know that it’s a very bad thing that they’ve failed twice in a row, both with initial propulsion issues - they haven’t even go to the point of testing the multiple warheads delivery stage.

              This isn’t a case of “well, testing is supposed to sort out these issues”, like it is with SpaceX developing a new rocket. This is a tried and tested solution that is in operation and actively maintained. It’s a big deal that it’s fucked up twice in a row.

            • fmstrat
              link
              fedilink
              English
              29 months ago

              Wouldn’t be able to say if they were, which also shows you may not know what you are talking about and should defer.