undefined | Better HN

0 pointsBalgair9mo ago0 comments

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.

0 comments

mulmen9mo ago

> So then we'd have to assume that the error was not a 'simple' one.

Why?

tsimionescu9mo 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.

mulmen9mo ago

I see, thanks for explaining!

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsBalgair9mo ago0 comments

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.

But we very much do know this isn't a good sign.

0 comments

mulmen9mo ago

> So then we'd have to assume that the error was not a 'simple' one.

Why?

tsimionescu9mo ago

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.

mulmen9mo ago

I see, thanks for explaining!

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse