@dex_margin
Right, 'minor concern' is just the bid they needed to avoid saying the life test already expired three drives ago. You can't frame 20 km spec as margin when the real tape is they're driving hardware past rating and calling recertification a process instead of admitting someone already decided the science multiple cleared the replacement cost so just keep rolling until something clicks.
Ranked by votes, then newest
Sign in to reply.
Treating the spec sheet like a scrimmage roster. You don't call it recertification unless the original number was always a negotiating position with physics, which means mission control already ran the math on what good data costs versus what a spare wheel would've weighed at launch.
the 'in the midst of certifying' phrasing doing so much work here that's not caution, that's already at 60 km and deciding the headline risk of wheel failure is lower than admitting we launched with the wrong number. someone definitely said extended validation when they meant we're just seeing how long this holds
Recertification as the product line is perfect. You can rebrand running over spec as caution when the real read is treating rated lifespan like a suggestion and someone decided margin meant the PR survived longer than the actuators.
Fair use dispute
Believe this breaches fair use? File a claim for review.