> You can spend your resources on doing careful modelling and over-engineering and conservative testing to always stay within limits, or you can go fast and loose and discover those limits the kinetic explodey way. SpaceX chose the latter strategy.
Again, this baseless assertion is just plain wrong on many levels, and flies in the face of basic engineering practices.
At best, you're confusing a consciencious choice of allocating piles of resources to avoid bottlenecks and time constraints, such as losing a prototype which is a project death sentence to your general aerospace research project, with plain old incompetence.
Engineering 101 teaches that when in doubt err on the safe side. Your assertion is the exact opposite because... Because what? What do you believe is the trade-off of wasting time and resources trying to fly intentionally half-baked designs that define the critical path of the project?
Please spend a moment thinking about what you've said to try to see how absurd it is to waste time and resources for nothing at all.
> Engineering 101 teaches that when in doubt err on the safe side.
Nonsense. You can't discover limits if you always stay within them. Commercial engineering, sure. But R&D is by definition the process of exploring an unknown parameter search space. And considering that spaceX have achieved what STS has failed to do with 1/10th of the STS budget, I'd say they're not doing terribly badly with their chosen R&D strategy. You seem to have a deeply ingrained misconception about what R&D actually entails and how it's different from both commercial engineering and designed experiments.
Erring on the safe side is what they're doing with their manned missions. Cargo missions are medium risk and occasionally do dirt-cheap launches to deliberately try risky scenarios. R&D ops is deliberately high risk and low process overhead. They rather someone just try something and see what happens instead of spending 6 months writing an experiment plan and getting it validated etc. as you would see in the pharma industry for example. I'm not sure why you're struggling to comprehend this fairly simple and fairly standard strategy.
In R&D things blow all the time.
You just usually don't see it. In labs when they are looking for new drug or vaccine - thousands of variants fail. And it's ok. When you are developing anything new - you do thousands of try and fail. IF you don't - then you will even ever invent anything new. The best you can do is a little bit upgraded iteration.
And here a few fails and it is disappointing?
Nope. Its the only way to discover something new.
There are world's of difference between a prototype accidentally blowing up because a design fault was unnoticed up to that moment, and this absurd spin on this accident about how these accidents are sought after and desirable. They aren't. They are always problematic and a setback, and in some projects even project-killers.
So, enough with the bullshit about how this accident is good news. It isn't. Even if the project can easily recover from this setback, it's still a setback.
And most fresh engineering graduates know nothing about real engineering.
You don't intentionally half bake the design, but you do intentionally try to exceed whatever your maximum design specification is.
The wing flex test, for example. 150% of the expected maximum flex the structure will experience during real operation.[1]
Even with software, you can't stop at "well I think this is the maximum load this service will handle in production." You need to know what will happen if that expectation is exceeded. Maybe nothing, or maybe your initial estimate was too high to begin with.
> And most fresh engineering graduates know nothing about real engineering.
And that's ok, that's why they are supervised by experienced engineers, who in turn in relevant projects with some complexity answer to senior engineers.
But even then screwups might happen, and sometimes it's ok. Nevertheless, unlike the spin that is being given to this disaster, that doesn't mean accidents are desirable or sought after.
Particularly when the accident consisted of exploding the prototype that was already scheduled for flight tests.
> Engineering 101 teaches that when in doubt err on the safe side.
This sounds like lecturing birds on how to fly (Nassim Taleb quote below.) They'll possibly fly people to the space station today. Maybe they have engineering 101 down? If they're breaking guidelines in a 101 level course, then maybe they're just making amendments to the rules. Maybe the textbook writers need to make a revision.
The greatest problem in knowledge is the “lecturing birds how to fly” effect. -Nassim Taleb
Again, this baseless assertion is just plain wrong on many levels, and flies in the face of basic engineering practices.
At best, you're confusing a consciencious choice of allocating piles of resources to avoid bottlenecks and time constraints, such as losing a prototype which is a project death sentence to your general aerospace research project, with plain old incompetence.
Engineering 101 teaches that when in doubt err on the safe side. Your assertion is the exact opposite because... Because what? What do you believe is the trade-off of wasting time and resources trying to fly intentionally half-baked designs that define the critical path of the project?
Please spend a moment thinking about what you've said to try to see how absurd it is to waste time and resources for nothing at all.