Comment by glenstein
4 days ago
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.
4 days ago
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.
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.
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 _____."
It's Maciej.
I would, except all Maceij is providing is "vibes" and much of the official report is redacted.
9 replies →
You really have no argument except the appeal to authority.