An article written by a "Polish-American web developer, entrepreneur, speaker, and social critic" says it's not safe to fly. And? What do the astronauts flying on board with significantly more information say?

▲

gus_massa an hour ago | parent | next [-]

There is also an old article written by a professional bongo player about the Challenger explossion. He has other hobbies, but he was not a Rocket Scientist https://www.nasa.gov/history/rogersrep/v2appf.htm

The takeaway, is that the software was fine, but other systems like the main engine used too much cutting edge technology and have a lot of unexpected failure modes and too many problems like partialy broken parts that should no get partialy broken. [For a weird coincidence, Artemis II uses the same engines.] He concluded that when you consider all the possible problems the failure rate was closer to 1/100, but management was underestimating them and the official value that was 1/100000. [Anyway, the engines didn't fail in Columbia, it was one of the other possible problems.]

The articles explain that the shield has problems but management is underestimating them again. Let's hope the mission goes fine, but in case of a explosion it would be like a deja vu.

▲

glenstein 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Did you read it? They're prolific here and the essence of the post is a bunch of citations and quotes from Nasa's own staff and literature.

▲

russdill 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Yes, I've also read material outside of that article from NASA's own staff and literature.

Statements like this:

"Put more simply, NASA is going to fly Artemis II based on vibes, hoping that whatever happened to the heat shield on Artemis I won’t get bad enough to harm the crew on Artemis II."

Are just so intellectually dishonest and completely ignore the extensive research and testing that's gone into qualifying this flight.

▲

randomNumber7 3 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

You really have no argument except the appeal to authority.

▲

glenstein 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

So did they! And they showed their work. So far you're just beating around the bush.

What would would help is if you said something like "Maceij says modeling a different entry approach on computers is no substitute for a bona fide re-entry testing a new design, but that's incorrect because _____."

	▲	russdill an hour ago \| parent [-]
		I would, except all Maceij is providing is "vibes" and much of the official report is redacted.