this post was submitted on 21 Feb 2024
223 points (96.3% liked)
World News
32047 readers
512 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
well, that's why they do excersises and tests.
Yes but this sort of test shouldn't fail, and it absolutely shouldn't fail twice in a row.
Well now they know there's something wrong elsewhere don't they? They don't exactly want this to happen, armchair-engineer.
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.
Nuclear submarine ballistics engineer?
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.
And they are bloody expensive tests to run. You are 100% correct.
For all I know you're taking some mild trolling too far?
Wouldn't be able to say if they were, which also shows you may not know what you are talking about and should defer.