Yes, the purpose of the test is to confirm things are working correctly, but for this kind of test you're supposed to make absolutely sure you have all your ducks in a row before you proceed.

[+] TheControlled@lemmy.world -6 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Nuclear submarine ballistics engineer?

[–] TWeaK@lemm.ee 20 points 9 months ago (2 children)

For all you know I could be. I'm certainly showing more technical expertise than you are these last few comments. You seem to just be arguing for the sake of it, and not really contributing anything of value to the discussion.

No one needs to be that involved with this to know that it's a very bad thing that they've failed twice in a row, both with initial propulsion issues - they haven't even go to the point of testing the multiple warheads delivery stage.

This isn't a case of "well, testing is supposed to sort out these issues", like it is with SpaceX developing a new rocket. This is a tried and tested solution that is in operation and actively maintained. It's a big deal that it's fucked up twice in a row.

[–] sunbeam60@lemmy.one 7 points 9 months ago

And they are bloody expensive tests to run. You are 100% correct.

[–] TheControlled@lemmy.world -2 points 9 months ago

For all I know you're taking some mild trolling too far?

[–] fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Wouldn't be able to say if they were, which also shows you may not know what you are talking about and should defer.