In most cases that would indicate an organizational failure. However, if something is trillions of miles away, and wrong commands could break communication etc, I'd probably just stick with the most experienced person as well.

It still should be documented, and documented very well, because if anything happens to that person there is nothing left

Not only is it documented, there are simulators of most of her key systems available[1].

[1]: https://github.com/Zaneham/voyager-fds-emulator

The AI slop readme is a real turn off. Makes me question the quality/accuracy of the rest of the project.

I wonder what kind of prompt they had to use to make a Readme that rude and unfunny

FWIW, that project appears to be a passion project from someone who has gathered materials. It is NOT real JPL simulator code.

I can't edit, but realize GP said 'project', so my comment would've been more helpful to the parent of that comment.

It probably is.

Yeah, I'm scheduled for surgery, so my insurance carrier says it's outrageous for the surgeon to come into the O.R. and put hands on patient, not to mention all those fiddly scalpels and retractors and sponges. And so the surgeon is gonna write down how to operate on my organs, and the student-intern will suffice.

This is how typical industrial workforce cost saving consulting suggests to operate.

I think it's incredibly naive to assume there's not documentation. Maybe look into NASA and the Voyager 2 program a bit.

Experts aren't made from reading a data sheet or process doc. Competence in performing a critical task comes from actually doing the task in practice and for real.