idlewords

Artemis II is not safe to fly

https://idlewords.com/2026/03/artemis_ii_is_not_safe_to_fly.htm

Artemis II Is Not Safe to Fly (Idle Words)

Mar 31 at 2:23amWeb
Show threadanitilMar 31

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

Show threadbsilvereagleMar 31

> “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 2022

This 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/

Show threadidlewordsMar 31
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.
Show threadsillysaurusxMar 31
How does SpaceX test it? Have they needed to solve this problem?
Show threadrkagererMar 31
By blowing up unmanned spacecraft and letting the ones that survive catch fire?
Show threadmargalabargalaMar 31
SpaceX tests these in prod. Kinda like Artemis I did.
Show threaderuMar 31
And this is actually a decent strategy, but you can only really do this when you have lots of unmanned flights.
Show threadidlewordsMar 31
They do iterative flight testing. Starship is I believe on its twelfth flight test; the first one was in 2023.
Show threadhvb2Mar 31

By having a much higher launch cadence and then analyzing the flight hardware afterwards.

Also, they don't have anything human rated going beyond LEO. Coming back from the moon means you're going significantly faster and thus need a better heat shield

Show threadSyzygyRhythmMar 31
There were 19 successful unmanned Dragon 1 missions before Crew Dragon, and an unmanned Crew Dragon mission before the first crewed one (actually two missions, but one didn't reenter from orbit). The heat shield material and design was essentially the same and so there was a great deal of flight heritage.
Show threaddelichonMar 31
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.
Show threaddataflowMar 31

> I am very not brave but I'd volunteer.

>> Artemis II could fly just as easily without astronauts on board

Show threadhealthworkerMar 31
I think they were saying they would sign up just for the experience, even if it's unnecessary to the program.
Show threaddataflowMar 31
[delayed]
Show threadoulu2006Mar 31
This is an interesting comment -- your life is precious brother, you might have something in store down the road :)
Show threadgedyMar 31
Depending on one's age, maybe not honestly? (Not the OP)
Show threaddundariousMar 31
Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori
Show threadstickynotememoMar 31
the old lie
Show threadlostloginMar 31
The young die.
Show threadlostloginMar 31
My theory is that this is something I’d say/do aged 20, and laugh at aged 60.
I’m slightly closer to 60 and am into the ‘No’ zone.
Show threadoritronMar 31

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.

Show threaderuMar 31

About the last point:

At this point in time, manned space exploration should come out of our entertainment budget. The same budget we use for football or olympic games.

Show threadvsgherziMar 31
Definitely concerned to hear but I’m hopeful that the core of nasa is intact. They’re some of the kindest and smartest people I’ve had the pleasure of meeting. They don’t joke around with lives on the line. I hope the best for everyone involved. I’ll be watching the launch of Artemis 2 and 3 with excitement and hope.