I completely agree on the responsibility for acceptance testing, but _someone_ is responsible for the grain structure of the material, after all that's one of the most important properties of metals aside from their constituent metal content, which is itself chosen for its influence over the microstructure of the alloy.
Yes, agreed. That said, I prefer to function from a mindset where I place fault in engineering first. What I mean by this is, I assume it is my responsibility to verify, as much as possible, that components and assemblies meet the required specifications. In other words, don't just engineer the parts. Take the time to engimeer a "failure is not an option" process as well.
I suspect SpaceX's costs are going to, over time, increase significantly as they continue to learn that playing it loose isn't always possible in that business. They are famous for going for COTS in order to save money.
This is NOT a put-down. I think what they are doing is fantastic. It is obviously redefining aerospace. At the same time I am astounded that critical structural components are not 100% tested. That said, metalurgy isn't my area of expertise, which means my opinion here could be complete nonsense. Perhaps this particular failure mode can only be tested through destructive methods (sectioning?) which means you can never be 100% certain to be flying good metal.
Are SpaceX famous for COTS though? My impression was that they manufacture a ridiculous amount of stuff in-house for ... well pretty much this exact reason.
I'd argue that the likely result here is Elon Musk will continue his campaign of "hell with it, we'll build our own".
