Actually no, it's Lockheed's that should have had a test-suite and conformance-suite for it, but probably only has a C-Suite. If the program is non-trivial proving its correctness can be very expensive to prove, both money and time wise, and something that is done contrary to the spec is obviously on the one executing the spec and being paid for it, which probably wasn't cheap and probably these expenses add to the "NASA only burns money..." narrative.

▲

lightedman 6 hours ago | parent [-]

"Actually no, it's Lockheed's that should have had a test-suite and conformance-suite for it"

Tell me you don't run AS9100D quality inspections without saying so directly.

	▲	hnedeotes 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Well, it seems like simple test & conformance suites would have been enough to catch this, so you wouldn't need to run AS9100D quality inspections. Besides it looks like the first AS9100 Standard was released after the incident even happened - perhaps even as a result of this. So it's totally irrelevant that you both audit software in the space and know the Standard, no pun intended