Its funny to see Fred pretending to be an engineer, and failing miserably.
lol.


On Sunday, September 4, 2016 at 8:10:52 AM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
JF Mezei wrote:

On 2016-09-03 06:59, Fred J. McCall wrote:

THEY DON'T CONSTANTLY TWEAK THE ****ING ROCKETS!!!!!!!!!!

How you you explain the accident caused by a changed strut that was
supporting some tank where the new part was found to not be strong
enough (or something akin to that) ?


You mean a sub delivered a faulty part that didn't meet spec? THAT
strut?


You make changes in 'blocks', not rocket by rocket.

Consider Boeing. When it introduces a new/improved cabin, it will still
be building old cabin designs for a while to fulfil existing contracts
for those customers who require commonality between all their planes.

While they still build planes with old design, they also build planes
with new designs for those customers who want it (and for new orders).


You understand that the CUSTOMER specifies the cabin design and it's
not part of the airplane 'design', right?


Similarly, Boeing is perfectly able to build 2 different 747s at same
time, one for Rolls Royce engines and one for GE engines. (engine mounts
are different).


Cite for the engine mounts being different? You understand that the
engine mount is NOT part of the engine, right? It's part of the CASE.
Usually when you have alternative engines the mounts are the same.


It should not be that difficult for SpaceX to produce an "old" Falcon9
for manned flight while producing ones with imrpovements for cargo. The
manned one will be same model but lag behind in intruducing changes
until such changes have been flight proven.


Yeah, things are always "not that difficult" when you're the guy who
only has to wave his hands. It's a bad idea and not worth the expense
or possible errors in assembly.


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn