I'm sure I don't have to tell you how much of a bad idea is to use testing environments not matching production, for something to be put into space on top of that!
Did you not read the article? This was a simulated load testing device that they could plug production components into to to experiment on them without needing to have the entire space-going arm on hand and powered up. Suggesting that a test component like that needs to be built to the same standards as the space-going equipment is, ummm - how do I out this politely? Wrong…
I disagree here. While it is a testing component, part of any valid test is that it be replicable. If you are running down to 'Home Depot' and picking up some random screws with who knows what specifications, how exactly are you going to replicate the design here? Perhaps they will never need to do it and it is a genuine one-off design, but putting on the line a potential multi-million (billion?) dollar project? In the grand scope then, spending $2000 (which I doubt WAS the real cost here) on some screws just gets a shrug out of me.
The safety cover is not part of the device under test and I doubt it interacts with it except during a catastrophic failure. It does not need to be replicated exactly the same in a future test.
Yeah sure - but where do you stop? Where do you draw the line and say "this bit doesn't need to be space-rated"?
Reductio ad absurdum says the table it sits on is "part of the test", and the power supply it runs off is "part of the test", and the engineers car that he uses to get to work to run the test is "part of the test"...
I'd _strongly_ advise that a screw that hold together the enclosure of a load-simulating-test-jig is _not_ "part of the test" in the way that requires ISO9000 compliance (or space-rating).
> Suggesting that a test component like that needs to be built to the same standards as the space-going equipment is, ummm - how do I out this politely? Wrong…
What would be the point of testing it then? If the test isn't replicating the production environment before production, what is the point? At that point you might as well just hot-glue the safety cover on. What's the difference?
That's my point - who's testing the mechanical characteristics of the retaining fasteners of the enclosure that the electronics load simulating is housed in? Is that part of any spec? Is it at all relevant to the success/failure of any of the space-rated or mission critical equipment?
Me, I'd _happily_ hot glue the cover on if it were more convenient to me at the time. I see this as mostly a workplace safety issue - the screw holding the cover on is _not_ "part of the test", it's mostly to keep accidental fingerpoking out.
RTFA. The reason that they made the decision to follow process was because they chose to apply the same procedures to everything to avoid picking and choosing which items were exempt.
If you start making exceptions you'll end up wasting more resources to keep track of them and evaluating whether they're acceptable for the scenario than just not making any as general rule.
Comments
When the end result of the materialized idea is it's going to be launched into space
Yes, but OP clearly says the boxes were never to be used in production, only testing.
I'm sure I don't have to tell you how much of a bad idea is to use testing environments not matching production, for something to be put into space on top of that!
Did you not read the article? This was a simulated load testing device that they could plug production components into to to experiment on them without needing to have the entire space-going arm on hand and powered up. Suggesting that a test component like that needs to be built to the same standards as the space-going equipment is, ummm - how do I out this politely? Wrong…
I disagree here. While it is a testing component, part of any valid test is that it be replicable. If you are running down to 'Home Depot' and picking up some random screws with who knows what specifications, how exactly are you going to replicate the design here? Perhaps they will never need to do it and it is a genuine one-off design, but putting on the line a potential multi-million (billion?) dollar project? In the grand scope then, spending $2000 (which I doubt WAS the real cost here) on some screws just gets a shrug out of me.
The safety cover is not part of the device under test and I doubt it interacts with it except during a catastrophic failure. It does not need to be replicated exactly the same in a future test.
Yeah sure - but where do you stop? Where do you draw the line and say "this bit doesn't need to be space-rated"?
Reductio ad absurdum says the table it sits on is "part of the test", and the power supply it runs off is "part of the test", and the engineers car that he uses to get to work to run the test is "part of the test"...
I'd _strongly_ advise that a screw that hold together the enclosure of a load-simulating-test-jig is _not_ "part of the test" in the way that requires ISO9000 compliance (or space-rating).
I don't think the OP ever said it was a mistake. He said he wouldn't make that choice, but that doesn't mean he thought it was wrong for the company.
Instead he contrasted it to what you can do today as a startup.
> Suggesting that a test component like that needs to be built to the same standards as the space-going equipment is, ummm - how do I out this politely? Wrong…
What would be the point of testing it then? If the test isn't replicating the production environment before production, what is the point? At that point you might as well just hot-glue the safety cover on. What's the difference?
That's my point - who's testing the mechanical characteristics of the retaining fasteners of the enclosure that the electronics load simulating is housed in? Is that part of any spec? Is it at all relevant to the success/failure of any of the space-rated or mission critical equipment?
Me, I'd _happily_ hot glue the cover on if it were more convenient to me at the time. I see this as mostly a workplace safety issue - the screw holding the cover on is _not_ "part of the test", it's mostly to keep accidental fingerpoking out.
RTFA. The reason that they made the decision to follow process was because they chose to apply the same procedures to everything to avoid picking and choosing which items were exempt.
If you start making exceptions you'll end up wasting more resources to keep track of them and evaluating whether they're acceptable for the scenario than just not making any as general rule.
...isn't that the point of testing? To determine what should be used in production?