Sort of. At a certain threshold, everything is untested. I’d put this closer to modified than untested—the general config was tested in Artemis I and the specific configuration in a variety of ground tests.
It failed testing. What you’re describing is the exact same thinking that destroyed Challenger. The O-rings are leaking, they’re not supposed to do that at all, but they’re not leaking enough to cause a failure....
Artemis II is scheduled for re-entry to Earth on April 10th. That is when the heat shield issue will be the most dangerous.
If it fails and the mission fails with loss of life while knowing it went ahead despite the IG report about the heat shield... It might be the end of NASA.
For manned spaceflight, I'd say it already has. NASA itself has launched a grand total of one manned flight since July 2011. China has launched 14 and SpaceX has launched 20. Worse, the NASA vehicle is completely unsustainable. It was obsolete before it ever flew and it's so expensive that the mission launched yesterday likely costs more than the entire R&D cost of SpaceX's rocket and capsule. Probably China's too.
The problem is that the purpose of NASA's manned spaceflight program isn't to explore space. It's to make the President look good (and I'm not just talking about the current one here) and funnel money to contractors. In that respect it's doing quite well.
Sort of. At a certain threshold, everything is untested. I’d put this closer to modified than untested—the general config was tested in Artemis I and the specific configuration in a variety of ground tests.