I have to admit that I'm impressed at how well the system they build compensated for the mechanical failure. It looks like they have some good people building things.
One aspect that's worth consideration is the private/corporate aspects of spaceflight. When there were failures in Apollo and the shuttle, the public had a right to know everything that happened since we'd paid for everything. SpaceX has been super cool about disclosure here, but how long can we count on that? At some point, there's too much money at stake for them to maintain full transparency.
What's more important than disclosure to the public after something has gone wrong, is disclosure to the customers (e.g. NASA) and future astronauts ahead of time if something has been identified as a potential problem before launch. The Space Shuttle Challenger disaster occurred because managers failed to acknowledge the warnings of engineers, who recommended postponing the launch due to cold weather which could prevent some O-rings from functioning properly. Having the ability to acknowledge and correct problems ahead of time, even if it means a launch delay and potentially some lost profits, will ultimately pave the path for a sustainable private space industry.
But I think that SpaceX understands that NASA is funded by the public and it will be easier to get the support of NASA if they have the support of the public. I would suspect that for this reason they will continue a decent amount of public disclosure.
I think you can physically model the ionizing radiation of a nuclear event, without actually detonating a weapon, just condoms are tested for elasticity by filling them with pressured air and water.
The detector may have been tested before the discontinuation of underground testing in the US in '92
This is the best advice of all that I've read in this thread. I wanted to add that strategically, you definitely want to have that job in hand before you quit.
Firstly, if you're interviewing at other places when you already have a job, they are usually willing to skip references and hire you based on tech knowledge and interviews alone. Grabbing tech talent these days is really tough, and most recruiters know they have to be discreet with people transitioning from a current job.
Secondly, the job you're at is likely to give you a crappy reference after you give notice. You want to be well on your way to making that next employer your next reference as soon as possible. The alternative, i.e. being unemployed with them as your most recent references, makes you harder to hire.
One thing that CSS does especially badly that tables do well is correlated sizing. It's easy with tables to make all the elements in a layout row all have the same height. Doing the same in CSS is possible but requires so many hacks that the net result makes you feel dirty.
I've watched this war for years now, and just wish both sides would give some ground. As long as you do your layout with the fewest amount of tables needed (trending toward zero), the you shouldn't need to guilt yourself out about it.
One aspect that's worth consideration is the private/corporate aspects of spaceflight. When there were failures in Apollo and the shuttle, the public had a right to know everything that happened since we'd paid for everything. SpaceX has been super cool about disclosure here, but how long can we count on that? At some point, there's too much money at stake for them to maintain full transparency.