Re:After a decade, NASA’s big rocket fails its first real test
by maccam94 on Sunday January 17, 2021 @01:22PM
(#25813292)
SLS proponents have been claiming that all of the extra time and money spent on process and formal verification would lead to a rocket that works without having to do lots of trial-and-error like SpaceX. Heck, even the name of the test campaign, the "Green Run," kind of reflects this hubris and shows that NASA expected the tests to largely be a formality.
Re:After a decade, NASA’s big rocket fails its first real test
by jbay808 on Sunday January 17, 2021 @01:52PM
(#25813639)
Doesn't a green run refer to a beginner level course? Like a practice ski hill?
Re:After a decade, NASA’s big rocket fails its first real test
by maccam94 on Sunday January 17, 2021 @11:27PM
(#25818144)
I didn't realize there was any other way to interpret it besides "getting green (successful) results for all of the tests" (there are 8 test stages planned). I think we're both wrong though:
"The term “green” refers to the new hardware that will work together to power the stage, and “run” refers to operating all the components together simultaneously for the first time." --https://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/green-run-test-...
I still think these tests should be run more than once though, the RS-25's were originally reusable anyway.
I do agree with this. I just took issue with the lede being “rocket test fails” as if that’s a bad thing.
The underlying points are all valid, speed, cost etc but a failed test is not the thing to be focussing the argument on in my view.