• dueuwuje@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      5 months ago

      I think it doesn’t need rocket science to understand the point trying to be made.

      • Diplomjodler@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        The way I understand is that they’re confused about the difference between test flights and operational missions.

      • MartianSands@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        The problem is that their point is nonsense.

        This isn’t a long-standing problem being persistently ignored, this is a test flight designed specifically to discover such problems. They were so keen to test how the system handled problems like this that they deliberately damaged the heat shield before the flight (somewhere other than where this particular problem occurred).

        The implication that this partial failure of the heat shield is damning evidence of negligence is either ignorant or deliberately deceptive