Reply to thread

That's my point.  These days those in charge are so risk-averse that failure is not tolerated.  When doing cutting edge research failure IS going to happen.  It should be a given to anybody with any reasonable amount of intelligence.  That's why they HAVE R&D.  But you learn from the mistakes and move on, not just give up.  And when I say "trival" I realize it's a relative thing but missing something due to inadequate QA is in my mind "trivial".  As in stupid.  This is not the kind of failure that should receive a large degree of tolerance, but at the same time you don't slit your own throat by cancelling the program.  Replace the people/contractor/subcontractor or give the project to a more competant team.





  Really?  Which "hard" thing was it that caused one of the HyFlys to drop straight into the ocean without even firing it's booster?  Which "hard" thing was it that prevented the last X-51 from initiating as planned?  If the act of merely dropping a missile and having it's booster fire reliably is so hard we've got bigger problems than I ever imagined.  I guess that's what happens when the time between tests is measured in years.


Back
Top Bottom