Re: Service Module ThrusterTest Fails - Thrusters May be OK Anyway

fairwater@xxxxxxxxx (Derek Lyons) wrote:

:"Jim Oberg" <jameseoberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
:
:>"Derek Lyons" <fairwater@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
:>news:4450020e.783804015@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
:>> "Jim Oberg" <jameseoberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
:>>>There's no indication that the SM engines are NOT available
:>>>for reboost.
:>>
:>> Oh, right. A failed test is *no* indication that the system has
:>> failed.
:>
:>It's how it failed.
:
:Jim - the engine failed to fire for a test, how it failed doesn't
:matter a whit. Everywhere I've ever been or seen, the working
:assumption is that if it can't pass testing, it can't be treated as
:operational.

I'm with Derek on this one. The lead for the project needs to be
taken aside and told in no uncertain terms, "Root cause analysis - get
some! Then come back to me and describe EXACTLY what happened and
why."

--
"Rule Number One for Slayers - Don't die."
-- Buffy, the Vampire Slayer
.