I worked on AWACS back in the early 2000s and we had an adversarial dynamic with our QA team. We would see them as 'just getting in the way', but I can now say, after working as a software developer, that without a strong QA (backed up by military laws), our planes would be flying with a lot of 'solutions' that would lead to unnecessary deaths.
> At SpaceX, investigators say they spotted workers using tools that weren’t specified in a manual.<p>Could you imagine being so micromanaged that you'd literally need the Federal Government to change a manual to approve a tool you need?
Here's a detailed discussion on the SpaceX side: <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/7ll89f/pentagon_watchdog_cites_top_us_space_contractors/" rel="nofollow">https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/7ll89f/pentagon_wat...</a>
Original source at <a href="http://gazette.com/poop-pop-threaten-air-force-rocket-program-investigators-say/article/1618540" rel="nofollow">http://gazette.com/poop-pop-threaten-air-force-rocket-progra...</a>
Sidebar: I read the title as “(poop and soda) bottles” instead of “poop and (soda bottles),” and was extremely confused.<p>I prefer to swap words around in cases like this to make it unambiguous, for example, “soda bottles and poop...”
Don't they typically test rockets in outdoors test ranges? And aren't rockets normally supposed to be able to operate outdoors?<p>Of course there is going to be dirt, rocks and yes, even fecal matter. What are they supposed to do, blow their hot exaust gases into a climate-controlled cleanroom?