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 a minute ago | parent | next [-]

You really have no argument except the appeal to authority.

▲

glenstein an hour 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.