undefined | Better HN

0 pointskrisoft5y ago0 comments

The article is devoid of engineering details. There is no way one can tell from this set of information if the FAA is right or wrong, or if SpaceX is right or wrong.

That being said I have a problem with your comment. You are talking about that the rocket exploded as if it was of consequence. You even capitalise it. Why do you think it matters?

Safety of a test is about the process, not the outcome. You might have a bonkers unsafe test and come out lucky. That doesn't mean that the test was a good idea or safe.

Or you might have the worst of luck, a complete explosive failure, and still everyone remains safe because the processes were right.

I don't know if the FAA is right or wrong. I don't know if the processes of SpaceX were safe or unsafe, but I know one thing. From the fact that it "EXPLODED" but hasn't hurt anyone or caused any 3rd party property damage you can't draw any conclusions about the safety.

0 comments

ojnabieoot5y ago

I am not saying that SpaceX isn't allowed to do dangerous tests. I am saying that a test where a rocket might explode is the kind of thing that the FAA should 100% be involved in and it's ridiculous to pretend otherwise.

chipsa5y ago

Literally every rocket launch can result in the rocket exploding.

bobthebuilders5y ago

You don't see anyone saying that for the 737 Max do you? Just the corrupt FA trying to hold innovation back. Look at Boeing...

2 more replies

ojnabieoot5y ago

And the FAA (or similar agency) should be involved with literally every rocket launch! Especially if it's a test!

What exactly is your point here?

animal_spirits5y ago

Then every single rocket launch should be held to some standards.

animal_spirits5y ago

> The article is devoid of engineering details. There is no way one can tell from this set of information if the FAA is right or wrong, or if SpaceX is right or wrong.

If this was some kind of engineering magazine, then you could expect in-depth details to the systems in place and mechanisms that failed. But this is a Reuters article, so I don't expect much technical details from it.

Regardless if anyone was harmed or not during an accident like this, standards should be enforced no matter what, if only to prevent the unlucky scenario in the future.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointskrisoft5y ago0 comments

The article is devoid of engineering details. There is no way one can tell from this set of information if the FAA is right or wrong, or if SpaceX is right or wrong.

That being said I have a problem with your comment. You are talking about that the rocket exploded as if it was of consequence. You even capitalise it. Why do you think it matters?

Safety of a test is about the process, not the outcome. You might have a bonkers unsafe test and come out lucky. That doesn't mean that the test was a good idea or safe.

Or you might have the worst of luck, a complete explosive failure, and still everyone remains safe because the processes were right.

0 comments

ojnabieoot5y ago

chipsa5y ago

Literally every rocket launch can result in the rocket exploding.

bobthebuilders5y ago

You don't see anyone saying that for the 737 Max do you? Just the corrupt FA trying to hold innovation back. Look at Boeing...

2 more replies

ojnabieoot5y ago

And the FAA (or similar agency) should be involved with literally every rocket launch! Especially if it's a test!

What exactly is your point here?

animal_spirits5y ago

Then every single rocket launch should be held to some standards.

animal_spirits5y ago

> The article is devoid of engineering details. There is no way one can tell from this set of information if the FAA is right or wrong, or if SpaceX is right or wrong.

Regardless if anyone was harmed or not during an accident like this, standards should be enforced no matter what, if only to prevent the unlucky scenario in the future.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse