On Fri, 26 Sep 2003, David J. McCue wrote:
> > >...I guess they really do
> > >not have very much time in static tests of the engine.
> > One static test, 4.5 seconds. Yep. One.
>
> I find the mean-spirited nature of this comment diffficult to understand.
It didn't seem mean-spirited to me, just practical. This engine simply
hadn't been tested enough to fly it with any confidence. That this
mistake is common in the amateur-rocket community doesn't make it any less
a mistake.
Yes, a limited supply of volunteer manpower makes it difficult to do these
things right. But failure isn't exactly good for attracting and keeping
volunteers either. A volunteer group may well want to compromise somewhat
on testing, for the sake of getting things flying, but still, there is a
minimum level of testing below which flight failure is not merely possible
but probable.
There may have been extenuating circumstances in this case, e.g. limited
test time before a rare flight opportunity, which made it reasonable to
attempt a risky flight of a largely untested engine. But if so, it would
do those hard-working volunteers more credit to admit this openly, and to
swear to learn from this mistake and do better next time, rather than
defending such a high-risk shortcut as if it were going to be standard
procedure.
Henry Spencer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
ERPS-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.erps.org/mailman/listinfo/erps-list
