Was she discovered because of structural problems? If not maybe she was right about the validity of the tests.
>>? If not maybe she was right about the validity of the tests.
Thats the real question isn’t it? Did anything fail that she said wouldn’t? I don’t know the answer, but it is entirely possible that she was actually right.
It damned well does not matter. If she thought the tests were meaningless or unnecessary there are ways to voice that concern. If she thought that they were inadequate she should have called ethics or the Navy inspector general. What she did cannot in any way be justified regardless of whether she was (in some sense) "right".
Her behavior is inexcusable and criminal. Damn right she should go to jail. Pour encourage les autres.
<>Was she discovered because of structural problems?<>
That question was answered in the article. Sheesh.
In one sense, she probably was right. It's highly unlikely that a ship would ever see a water temperature of -100F. The water would be ice long before it got that cold. Note that the Titanic failed because of cold water. The Titanic's hull was made of steel that became brittle at temperatures like those in the North Atlantic. The metal tore, instead of denting when the iceberg was hit. The temperature there, though, was likely a hundred or so degrees warmer than the -100F specification. Steel has come a long way since then.
Nevertheless, her responsibility as an engineer is to get the specification changed, not to falsify the test data.