The fuel issue was two different design problems, the first not having any way to empty a fuelled launcher, and the second not appreciating the effects that prolonged exposure to the fuel would have on the seals.

The change of cycle rate for only part of the project was a lack-of-design problem!

2. The air-conditioning unit in the ceiling of the lab failed and dripped water right on top of the UUT.

3. The equipment when delivered was too tall for the doorway of the receiving bay.

4. Airflow plenums in the UUT were accidentally shaped in a manner as to condense water – right into the UUT.

5. Levered my finger against a toggle switch. It didn’t move. Pressed harder – it broke. It needed to be “pulled” slightly before pressing.

6. Plugged a 12v supply into a 6v device. The “adapter” for connecting 6v and 12v was the same.

These were different projects (mostly) I could go on.

“management” or whoever cannot be expected to know everything that could occur out there in the real world, to plan perfectly one would have to know everything, and if you tried to do that you would end up with paralysis by analysis.

The point is to have “resilience” – the ability to recover when things don’t go according to plan.

Clearly the test planing team did not do an adequate analysis. (risk assement associated with time delay after fueling). More importantly, however, the test was a success. You learned that seals deteriorate (there clearly were cheaper ways to accomplish this, why those evaluations were not conducted is another question). As NASA learned during the administration of Ronald Regan, when they decided to launch on a rather cold day.