On 10/6/2013 2:25 PM, Henry Spencer wrote:
As witness SpaceX's reporting on the engine explosion a year ago, you need to read their statements about mishaps *very* critically, with careful attention to exact wording. E.g., last year they said (roughly) "the control system noticed falling chamber pressure and issued a shutdown command to the engine"; they did *not* say "the engine was still running properly until it shut down on command", but many people jumped to that conclusion. I expect this was precisely their intent.
The Soviets used to be the masters of this. Two instances I recall off the top of my head: Korabl Sputnik 3, a Vostok predecessor, was reported to have reentered at an incorrect angle and been destroyed in the atmosphere. This was interpreted to mean it had burned up on reentry, when in reality it had been destroyed by its auto-destruct charge because of the off-course reentry.
On Voskhod 1, it was announced that ion devices were used to aid the control of the orientation of the spacecraft. Analysts jumped to the conclusion that the Soviets had developed ion engines, when in reality the devices were sensors to try to detect (not control) the orientation.
