Isn’t it better to review, interview the crew and identify why the error
occurred? That way, the team learns and if there was an individual responsible
for the error, that individual can recognize and preempt the situation from
occurring again. That, educates and reinforces the engineering and test system.
If it’s neglect, then that needs to be identified and the team needs to
understand why that happened as well, in order to mitigate neglect going
forward. Firing staff just causes people to cover up and avoid responsibility
in my experience.
Anthony J. Cesaroni
President/CEO
Cesaroni Technology/Cesaroni Aerospace
<http://www.cesaronitech.com/> http://www.cesaronitech.com/
(941) 360-3100 x101 Sarasota
(905) 887-2370 x222 Toronto
From: arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of
ken mason
Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 8:18 PM
To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [AR] Re: SpaceX Crumple Test
It's such a basic mistake that could get some one fired on the spot. Should of
been double checked with other engineers and/or a test reediness review
meeting..
But as they said, it's not a fundamental design error. So suspect it will get
done right the 2nd time. I recommend a high volume (Cv) remote sensing dome
loading regulator like a Grove Poweractor or Tescom.
On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 5:09 PM Jonathan Goff <jongoff@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:jongoff@xxxxxxxxx> > wrote:
I wonder how much of it was due to overworking their team. And I wonder if
they'll actually learn any lessons from that.
~Jon
On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 5:00 PM roxanna Mason <rocketmaster.ken@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:rocketmaster.ken@xxxxxxxxx> > wrote:
A rookie mistake from the world leader in launch vehicle design. It happens and
I won't throw the first rock.
Import thing is to learn from our mistakes.
On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 2:33 PM Bob Herguth <bob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:bob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote:
From the twitter feed.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1246677676733104130
From: arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
[mailto:arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx ;<mailto:arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> ] On
Behalf Of roxanna Mason
Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2020 1:09 PM
To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [AR] Re: SpaceX Crumple Test
Giving Space X the benefit of the doubt/speculation, my money is on some
equipment or component failure even a ruptured line albeit such low pressures.
Once again, a company that has the accomplishments that it has under their
belts, hard for me to believe it's something even I would of avoided, with ease.
Maybe they'll tell us.
On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 12:05 PM Henry Vanderbilt <hvanderbilt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:hvanderbilt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote:
On 4/7/2020 11:45 AM, roxanna Mason wrote:
Back to this whole thing about Space-X failing that SS tank makes no
sense, are they that incompetent? Even I would of know the
thermodynamic difference between GN2 and GHe. Just like my pulse jet
on GH2 draining a K bottle under 5 sec,it sails thru pipes and
regulators,i.e.The square root of the diff of the respective MW.
So it's git to be something else, I mean heck, they're orbiting
satellites and recovering boosters almost routinely! Maybe they're
farming out some of their testing workload to save time.