this post was submitted on 29 Aug 2024
258 points (95.4% liked)

Technology

59288 readers
3914 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] PassingThrough@lemmy.world 68 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It’s not really because it fell over. It’s because it wasn’t supposed to fall over. Consumable launch materials don’t contend with this because failure to return is a success. This is a failure. This must be learned from and fought against/prevented going forward.

[–] SzethFriendOfNimi@lemmy.world 33 points 2 months ago

Seems reasonable. This is exactly what the FAA should be doing and is why flying is so safe since every crash and accident becomes an opportunity to learn and adjust procedures to minimize the risks.

Let’s find out why it failed and then identify metrics for when a module can be reused.