• 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.