Hacker News Reader

Comment by tailspin2019 | Hacker News Reader

tailspin2019·

> I don’t mind failure and I understand there are going to be setbacks. I just wish they would fail faster.

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.

View on HN

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.

Doesn't a green run refer to a beginner level course? Like a practice ski hill?

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com