3 ms·

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 7mo ago
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.
- glenstein 7mo ago
  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 7mo ago
    I would, except all Maceij is providing is "vibes" and much of the official report is redacted.
    - glenstein 7mo ago
      That's not even remotely true. They talked in great detail about heat shield fragmentation Artemis I, it's failure modes, the prospect of it getting worse with new designs and a number of other things at much greater detail than you are. Your comments show a fraction of the effort and detail of the thing you're criticizing and you could have made your best argument five comments ago if you were ever actually going to instead of beating around the bush with these substance free drive bys. Either theres a functional literacy issue here keeping you from understanding what it means to express a substantive thought or you overestimate other people's toleration for writing checks promising unmade arguments that never cash. You can't keep buying time with nothingburgers.
      - ActorNightly 7mo ago
        You are obviously very invested in the fact that someone who is going against the grain of the obviously bad, overly buerocratic government agency MUST be correct (otherwise, in the case you actually gave a fuck about the truth, you would be researching statements from NASA and comparing the reports) If that is so, put your money where you mouth is and place a bet on polymarket. If you are too scared to do so, then admit it to yourself, and understand that you don't believe this shit anyway. Because you being a cuck for a contrarian for the sole reason that he is going against the grain is basically the same as Joe Rogan being anti-vaxx because its trendy and cool to think government=bad.
        JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
        > place a bet on polymarket Aww, it would make me sad if people were betting on astronauts dying.
        palata 7mo ago
        > place a bet on polymarket Isn't that a platform for insider trading? Not sure it qualifies here.
        ben_w 7mo ago
        Not only but also.
        klausa 7mo ago
        I don't think "you're being contrarian just for the sake of being contrarian" pairs particularly well with "if you're so convinced then just bet on in bro" as an argument.
        ActorNightly 6mo ago
        I never said he was being contrarian for the sake of being contrarian. I said he was being contrarian because its trendy. There is a difference between hating big government because of facts, and hating big government because its trendy.
  - klausa 7mo ago
    It's Maciej.
- randomNumber7 7mo ago
  You really have no argument except the appeal to authority.

russdill 7mo ago

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.

glenstein 7mo ago
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 7mo ago
  I would, except all Maceij is providing is "vibes" and much of the official report is redacted.
  - glenstein 7mo ago
    That's not even remotely true. They talked in great detail about heat shield fragmentation Artemis I, it's failure modes, the prospect of it getting worse with new designs and a number of other things at much greater detail than you are. Your comments show a fraction of the effort and detail of the thing you're criticizing and you could have made your best argument five comments ago if you were ever actually going to instead of beating around the bush with these substance free drive bys. Either theres a functional literacy issue here keeping you from understanding what it means to express a substantive thought or you overestimate other people's toleration for writing checks promising unmade arguments that never cash. You can't keep buying time with nothingburgers.
    - ActorNightly 7mo ago
      You are obviously very invested in the fact that someone who is going against the grain of the obviously bad, overly buerocratic government agency MUST be correct (otherwise, in the case you actually gave a fuck about the truth, you would be researching statements from NASA and comparing the reports) If that is so, put your money where you mouth is and place a bet on polymarket. If you are too scared to do so, then admit it to yourself, and understand that you don't believe this shit anyway. Because you being a cuck for a contrarian for the sole reason that he is going against the grain is basically the same as Joe Rogan being anti-vaxx because its trendy and cool to think government=bad.
      - JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
        > place a bet on polymarket Aww, it would make me sad if people were betting on astronauts dying.
      - palata 7mo ago
        > place a bet on polymarket Isn't that a platform for insider trading? Not sure it qualifies here.
        ben_w 7mo ago
        Not only but also.
      - klausa 7mo ago
        I don't think "you're being contrarian just for the sake of being contrarian" pairs particularly well with "if you're so convinced then just bet on in bro" as an argument.
        ActorNightly 6mo ago
        I never said he was being contrarian for the sake of being contrarian. I said he was being contrarian because its trendy. There is a difference between hating big government because of facts, and hating big government because its trendy.
- klausa 7mo ago
  It's Maciej.
randomNumber7 7mo ago
You really have no argument except the appeal to authority.