Re:Orbital Sciences Antares rocket explodes after liftoff
by lutorm on Tuesday October 28, 2014 @08:54PM
(#8524814)
A failure means you took risk, which is something you should do if you want to push the boundaries. So you did do something right. No one would suggest you did everything right.
Conversely, absence of failure may mean you took a calculated amount of risk and it paid off. But it could also mean you were overly conservative, didn't push the boundaries, and took a minimum of risk. There's no way to tell the difference purely from the absence of failure.
The worst outcome is when a failure happens and you though you were very conservative but actually had no idea what the real risks were. That's the Challenger situation.
Re:Orbital Sciences Antares rocket explodes after liftoff
by SAI_Peregrinus on Wednesday October 29, 2014 @09:41PM
(#8530927)
Taking risks is good in testing/design, but not a great idea for a production rocket. You want to find all the failure points during the design phase instead of blowing up expensive payloads.
Re:Orbital Sciences Antares rocket explodes after liftoff
by Dylan16807 on Wednesday October 29, 2014 @11:26AM
(#8527669)
Taking a minimum of risk and getting the job done is also getting something right, a good deal of somethings.
| Don't fret the failures. Right. Instead of focusing on getting stressed and fretting, the right thing to do is fix whatever it was that resulted in failure. And when you redo it and its a success, that means you did something right.