Discussion

anitil: This is a concerning read, I'm not quite sure what the driving motivation is for Artemis, but the following answered at least part of my question -> That context is a moon program that has spent close to $100 billion and 25 years with nothing to show for itself, at an agency that has just experienced mass firings and been through a near-death experience with its science budget

johng: Great read and interesting article. Hard to believe that NASA would risk astronauts lives simply to save face, but that appears to be what's going to happen.

jojobas: Was there ever a risk-free spaceflight? Pretty sure even with this finding this flight would be safer than any Apollo.

everyone: Saturn 5 had a flawless record. The leftover space shuttle parts which SLS is cobbled together from, not so much. SRBs are inherently dangerous. And Orion is just a typical modern Boeing project. So far its fallen at every hurdle right?

cr125rider: But that’s exactly what happened with Challenger

EA-3167: The author seems to have a pretty extensive history of… strong disdain for Artemis II. While has mentioned concerns about the heat shield before it was in the context of a laundry list of complaints, and it was nowhere close to the top.I’m not a rocket scientist, but then neither is the author.

steve-atx-7600: Astronauts are smart folks. They can vote with their feet.

evan_a_a: Orion is a Lockheed (CM) and Airbus (ESM) project.

everyone: Yeah, I thought it was Starliner on top. I dont know anything about Orion then. SLS is very crappy and disappointing, its using shitty old space shuttle tech, + its ridiculously expensive in terms of payload to orbit, but it will probably work.

themafia: > if a commercial crew capsule (SpaceX Dragon or Boeing Starliner) returned to Earth with the kind of damage seen on Orion, NASA would insist on a redesign and an unmanned test flight to validate it.Are you sure about that?https://spaceflightnow.com/2022/05/24/spacex-swapping-heat-s...

jaggederest: And Columbia, too, when they made the decision to reenter without inspection, and reenter instead of waiting for rescue.

saghm: You seem to be ignoring the "just to save face" part. I'd argue it would be a worse thing for our bar for how safe it should be to be raised significantly from when we had been in space as a species less than a decade to now that it's been 65 years.

tonymet: Never risk free , but Soyuz hardly lost any crew over its 50+ years

tonymet: They’ve killed dozens during the shuttle program , or did you forget ? Also a number during Gemini, Mercury and Appollo. Terrible safety record , and 5x worse than Soyuz . Shuttle fatality rate was 1/10. Approaching Russian roulette odds

CoastalCoder: 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?

floxy: 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."

bch: What a horrible (preventable) position to be in, though.

kristianp: > The trouble is that the heat shield on Orion blows chunks. Not in some figurative, pejorative sense, but in the sense that when NASA flew this exact mission in 2022, large pieces of material blew out of Orion’s heat shield during re-entry, leaving divots. Large bolts embedded in the heat shield also partially eroded and melted through.Fun wording. This isn't news, concerns have been raised about Artemis II saftey in the past 3+ years since Artemis I and before then as well.

bsilvereagle: > “Our test facilities can’t reach the combination of heat flux, pressure, shear stresses, etc., that an actual reentering spacecraft does. We’re always having to wait for the flight test to get the final certification that our system is good to go.”—Jeremy VanderKam, deputy manager for Orion’s heat shield, speaking in 2022This is a strange claim, considering NASA used to have 2 facilities that were capable of this - one at Johnson and one at Ames. They were consolidated (https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20160001258/downloads/20...) but it seems like the Arc Jet Complex at Ames is still operational https://www.nasa.gov/ames/arcjet-complex/

mikelitoris: It’s the American roulette

idlewords: The Orion heat shield is sixteen feet across. NASA's test facilities can only test small material samples in these facilities, not capture how the entire heat shield will behave.

fishgoesblub: A rescue was impractical and potentially riskier no?

wat10000: 135 missions, 2 fatal accidents, that’s not 1/10.

oritron: I haven't kept up with Artemis development but I've read extensively about Challenger and Columbia. These two parts of the article stood out to me:> Moon-to-Mars Deputy Administrator Amit Kshatriya said: “it was very small localized areas. Interestingly, it would be much easier for us to analyze if we had larger chunks and it was more defined”. A Lockheed Martin representative on the same call added that "there was a healthy margin remaining of that virgin Avcoat. So it wasn’t like there were large, large chunks.”Followed by:> The Avcoat material is not designed to come out in chunks. It is supposed to char and flake off smoothly, maintaining the overall contours of the heat shield.This is echoes both Shuttle incidents. Challenger: no gasses were supposed to make it past the o-rings no matter what, but when it became clear that gasses were escaping and the o-rings were being damaged, there was a push to suggest that it's an acceptable level.There was a similar situation with heat shield damage and Columbia.In both cases some models were used to justify the decision, with wild extrapolations and fundamentally, a design that wasn't expected to fail in that mode /at all/.I know the points that astronauts make about the importance of manned space exploration, but I agree with this author that it seems to make sense to run this as an unmanned mission, and probably test the new heat shield which will replace the Artemis II design in an unmanned re-entry as well.

wmf: Related: NASA's Orion Space Capsule Is Flaming Garbage by Casey Handmer https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45794242Is Orion’s heat shield really safe? New NASA chief conducts final review on eve of flight. https://arstechnica.com/space/2026/01/nasa-chief-reviews-ori...

shrubble: *Freedom Roulette

delichon: I am very not brave but I'd volunteer. The trip is far more awesome than anything I have planned for the rest of my life. And if the shield fails on reentry it would only hurt for a few seconds. So if the crew and the backups and their backups read this and have second thoughts, ping me.

staplung: In total, a little over one dozen astronauts died on shuttle flights (14). No astronauts died during Gemini or Mercury. Three died in a test on Apollo 1. The shuttle failure rate was nowhere close to 1/10. In fact, it was 1/67 (2 failures out of 134 flights).

paleotrope: Riskier? Didn't they all die. Maybe if you ended up with 2 stranded shuttle crews, but correct me if I'm wrong, and I probably am, but couldn't the shuttle fly without any crew?

dataflow: What I don't get is why the heck are the astronauts willing to risk their lives on something they must know by now is so dangerous? Is it really better to risk death than to risk getting fired?

wat10000: Your link says it failed in testing, not in flight.

akamaka: 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.

dataflow: > I am very not brave but I'd volunteer.>> Artemis II could fly just as easily without astronauts on board

wat10000: Saturn 5 came close to catastrophic failure at least once. It had partial failures. Its sort of perfect record is mostly down to luck and not launching very many times.Of course, six decades later, we should be able to do a lot better.

1shooner: >They’ve killed dozens during the shuttle programColumbia and Challenger crew totaled 14, who else are you referring to?

thomassmith65: This comment in dripping with elitism. We trusted the rocket scientists and what did that get us? The Challenger disaster. /s

idlewords: It couldn't, for a funny reason. Everything on a Shuttle flight could be automated except lowering the landing gear just before touchdown, which had to be done by hand from inside the cockpit.There are rumors (that I've never been able to run down) that the astronaut corps insisted on this so the Shuttle could not be flown unmanned.

shawn_w: There aren't many people left who've been that close to the moon. Lots of people would love to be on that list.

healthworker: I think they were saying they would sign up just for the experience, even if it's unnecessary to the program.