3 ms·

Actually the heat shield was the exact opposite of normalization of deviance. When the Artemis I heat shield behaved in an unmodeled way, they spent two years a

Actually the heat shield was the exact opposite of normalization of deviance. When the Artemis I heat shield behaved in an unmodeled way, they spent two years analyzing the issue, modified their test system to create all conditions of reentry, came up with a new model that took into account more variables and explained the results seen on Artemis I, then duplicated those results in test to confirm. The condition of the Artemis II heat shield is a sign that they were most likely correct. I still think they shouldn’t have flown astronauts on Artemis II without an unmanned flight to reduce risk, including other systems like ECLSS as well as the heat shield. But it was the opposite of normalization of deviance.

anonymars 6mo ago
That's a fair point: they did tests and made changes to adjust for what they found, and that isn't normalization. That is a contrast to prior experiences I was drawing the comparison through the lens of using hardware that was known to be flawed for the mission by convincing themselves it was actually fine. Particularly since they did redesign the heat shield based on the analysis, but it was too late to install on Artemis II, so that new shield will debut with Artemis III I agree that in sum, it would have been nice to be able to do an unmanned test, but that would have been an exceedingly difficult and expensive decision to make. I look forward to seeing the results for the Artemis II heat shield