3 ms·

That's not the point and you know it. Don't be pedantic. It doesn't help the conversation. The above poster is saying that even small problems can lead to catas

That's not the point and you know it. Don't be pedantic. It doesn't help the conversation. The above poster is saying that even small problems can lead to catastrophic consequences in complicated machines.

Dylan16807 4y ago
I'm not being pedantic. I'm pointing out that the example is a corner case that is irrelevant to this topic. > The above poster is saying that even small problems can lead to catastrophic consequences in complicated machines. That's a very generic statement. Are you sure that was their real point? Not something more specific to air strikes?
- petee 4y ago
  It was my point, and i thought it was clear enough that it was just a comparison of projectile to target, and the damage a tiny object can cause; I should have added more words, maybe. Most at NASA thought that the foam couldn't have damaged the spacecraft, and they were wrong. If a drone penetrates the wing, we don't really know if it can make it to the fuel tank when it hits at 500...
  - Dylan16807 4y ago
    If your point is "small problems can lead to catastrophic consequences in complicated machines" then it's not helpful, because we have more specific information for planes that overrides such a generic statement.
yjftsjthsd-h 4y ago
> The above poster is saying that even small problems can lead to catastrophic consequences in complicated machines. Sure, but they picked an example that's outside of this kind of aircraft's spec, so it's not clear that it's applicable. Bad examples deserve to be called out.
mardifoufs 4y ago
Who's being pedantic here? The conversation is about a complete fiction, since a balloon never caused an airliner to crash. Why do we have to entertain that scenario that never actually happened, and how does that help the conversation about the danger of balloons to air traffic?

3 ms·

That's not the point and you know it. Don't be pedantic. It doesn't help the conversation. The above poster is saying that even small problems can lead to catas

by bigtex88 4y ago

Dylan16807 4y ago
I'm not being pedantic. I'm pointing out that the example is a corner case that is irrelevant to this topic. > The above poster is saying that even small problems can lead to catastrophic consequences in complicated machines. That's a very generic statement. Are you sure that was their real point? Not something more specific to air strikes?
- petee 4y ago
  It was my point, and i thought it was clear enough that it was just a comparison of projectile to target, and the damage a tiny object can cause; I should have added more words, maybe. Most at NASA thought that the foam couldn't have damaged the spacecraft, and they were wrong. If a drone penetrates the wing, we don't really know if it can make it to the fuel tank when it hits at 500...
  - Dylan16807 4y ago
    If your point is "small problems can lead to catastrophic consequences in complicated machines" then it's not helpful, because we have more specific information for planes that overrides such a generic statement.
yjftsjthsd-h 4y ago
> The above poster is saying that even small problems can lead to catastrophic consequences in complicated machines. Sure, but they picked an example that's outside of this kind of aircraft's spec, so it's not clear that it's applicable. Bad examples deserve to be called out.
mardifoufs 4y ago
Who's being pedantic here? The conversation is about a complete fiction, since a balloon never caused an airliner to crash. Why do we have to entertain that scenario that never actually happened, and how does that help the conversation about the danger of balloons to air traffic?