JF Mezei wrote on Mon, 18 Jun 2018
02:44:03 -0400:

On 2018-06-17 16:52, Jeff Findley wrote:

Also, you act like they've done zero cryogenic testing on this composite
cryogenic tank design. This is utterly false. Here is a cite from
Composites Manufacturing Magazine:


I mentioned that they built one, filled it succesfully, then
destructively tested it to see at what pressure it failed. I did not
ignore this. The article you linked is older and doesn't mention the
destructive test SpaceX did (which I mentioned).


You also claimed that what they built and tested wasn't representative
of what they intend to build as a final article and fly, which is just
a stupid assertion.


These tests do not mean the tank is ready. There are other tests they
need to do, in particulat measure how many fill/empty cycles can be made
before flaws start to appear. And if that number if below expectations,
fix the design to add longevity.

This is a normal part of development. Nothing nefarious about it. But
just because they did 2 tests doesn't mean that they did all the tests.


Just because they only told you about two tests doesn't mean they
didn't do any others.



You seem to keep assuming SpaceX engineers don't perform any sort of
ground testing and just "wing it" every time they fly. The facts do not
support that assertion.


I was responding to McCall who claimed engineers can build stuff that
works (in response to my arguments they need to test to validate the
designs and in doing so, can possibly find problems that need to be fixed.


Apparently your deficiency in knowledge of engineering is only
surpassed by your defective English skills, since I said no such
thing. My responses were replies to your massively stupid assertion
that they just built any old tank and tested that without any idea at
all of what they're actually going to build.


--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine