Hacker News Reader

Comment by CoastalCoder | Hacker News Reader

The article seems compelling, but experience tells me to get both sides of a story before judging.

Anyone know if there's a detailed response from NASA to the article?

There’s been plenty of coverage of this issue, and this article discusses some of the changed they made: https://www.space.com/space-exploration/artemis/the-artemis-...

The only thing the author of this blog piece has to offer that’s new is his very strong personal intuition that the new design hasn’t been properly validated, without any engineering explanation about why the testing the performed won’t adequately simulate real world performance.

Their testing procedures failed to predict the char loss before the flight, so they don't seem very reliable.

Yes, the original procedures didn’t find the problem, but it says they were eventually able to duplicate it in the lab and the new material has passed that test.

https://www.nasa.gov/blogs/missions/2026/03/30/nasas-artemis...

"countdown clock started ticking down" "to a targeted launch time of 6:24 p.m. on Wednesday, April 1."

I’m fairly confident NASA doesn’t read Maciej’s blog. However I’m confident that many people there read the Google doc he linked to. I suggest you do too.

While I appreciate independent bloggers, I think that the HackerNews community should expect big claims, like a NASA cover up:

> NASA’s initial instinct was to cover up the problem.

to at least warrant a link.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com