NASA Confident, But Some Critics Wonder if Its Orion Spacecraft is Safe to Fly (cnn.com)
- Reference: 0180648362
- News link: https://science.slashdot.org/story/26/01/24/0633252/nasa-confident-but-some-critics-wonder-if-its-orion-spacecraft-is-safe-to-fly
- Source link: https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/23/science/artemis-2-orion-capsule-heat-shield
But "When four astronauts begin a historic trip around the moon as soon as February 6, they'll climb aboard NASA's 16.5-foot-wide Orion spacecraft with the understanding that it has a known flaw — one that has some experts urging the space agency not to fly the mission with humans on board..."
> The issue relates to a special coating applied to the bottom part of the spacecraft, called the heat shield... This vital part of the Orion spacecraft is nearly identical to the heat shield flown on [2]Artemis I , an uncrewed 2022 test flight. That prior mission's Orion vehicle returned from space with a heat shield pockmarked by unexpected damage — prompting NASA to investigate the issue. And while NASA is poised to clear the heat shield for flight, even those who believe the mission is safe acknowledge there is unknown risk involved. "This is a deviant heat shield," said Dr. Danny Olivas, a former NASA astronaut who served on a space agency-appointed independent review team that [3]investigated the incident. "There's no doubt about it: This is not the heat shield that NASA would want to give its astronauts." Still, Olivas said he believes after spending years analyzing what went wrong with the heat shield, NASA "has its arms around the problem..."
>
> "I think in my mind, there's no flight that ever takes off where you don't have a lingering doubt," Olivas said. "But NASA really does understand what they have. They know the importance of the heat shield to crew safety, and I do believe that they've done the job." Lakiesha Hawkins, the acting deputy associate administrator for NASA's Exploration Systems Development Mission Directorate, echoed that sentiment [4]in September , saying, "from a risk perspective, we feel very confident." And Reid Wiseman, the astronaut set to command the Artemis II mission, has expressed his confidence. "The investigators discovered the root cause, which was the key" to understanding and solving the heat shield issue, Wiseman [5]told reporters last July . "If we stick to the new reentry path that NASA has planned, then this heat shield will be safe to fly."
>
> Others aren't so sure. "What they're talking about doing is crazy," said Dr. Charlie Camarda, a heat shield expert, research scientist and former NASA astronaut. Camarda — who was also a member of the first space shuttle crew to launch after the 2003 Columbia disaster — is among a group of former NASA employees who do not believe that the space agency should put astronauts on board the upcoming lunar excursion. He said he has spent months trying to get agency leadership to heed his warnings to no avail... Camarda also emphasized that his opposition to Artemis II isn't driven by a belief it will end with a catastrophic failure. He thinks it's likely the mission will return home safely. More than anything, Camarda told CNN, he fears that a safe flight for Artemis II will serve as validation for NASA leadership that its decision-making processes are sound. And that's bound to lull the agency into a false sense of security, Camarda warned.
CNN adds that Dr. Dan Rasky, an expert on advanced entry systems and thermal protection materials who worked at NASA for more than 30 years, also does not believe NASA should allow astronauts to fly on board the Artemis II Orion capsule.
And "a crucial milestone could be days away as Artemis program leaders gather for final risk assessments and the flight readiness review," when top NASA brass determine whether the Artemis II rocket and spacecraft are ready to take off with a human crew.
[1] https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/23/science/artemis-2-orion-capsule-heat-shield
[2] https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2022/11/world/artemis-1-mission-explainer/
[3] https://www.calameo.com/read/00270123481c7e3a8c300
[4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFvHUa4_VOU
[5] https://aerospaceamerica.aiaa.org/artemis-ii-crew-expresses-confidence-in-orion-capsule-heat-shield/
This is rocket science (Score:2)
Space is hard. Aside from the heat shield, there are a million things that could go the wrong with loss of life as the result.
With the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo programs, by the time Apollo 11 launched, they had done a pretty good shakedown of the systems, and lost three astronauts during that shakedown. If this were SpaceX, there would have been at least two, maybe more, unmanned flights testing all of the changes between iterations. Here there was no iterations. Artemis I flew just over 3 years ago.
Re:This is rocket science (Score:5, Interesting)
Normalization of Deviance is what destroyed both Challenger and Columbia. The o-rings weren't meant to leak but NASA decided it was OK to leak a bit. The heat shield wasn't supposed to be damaged in the launch, but NASA decided a bit of damage was OK.
Odds are the heat-shield will protect them on the way back, but this damage isn't meant to happen. Fly enough times and it may well kill a crew if it's not fixed.
Re: (Score:2)
The difficulty is that there are always people for whom NO level of engineering analysis and testing will ever convince them of safety.
The best you can do is to actually listen to the engineers who understand the technology.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe I'm misinterpreting your post, but the engineers who designed these spacecraft said the o-rings shouldn't leak and the heat-shields shouldn't be damaged.
It's the managers who said 'hey, that's fine, what could possibly go wrong?' and killed the crews.
NASA was "confident" on Columbia and Challenger (Score:3)
Being "confident" means nothing unless the actual engineers are confident with no outside pressure whatsoever applied. I really doubt that is the situation here.
Re: (Score:1)
They say they "fixed the problem", but it's too often the case that the change introduces new problems.
Re: (Score:2)
They made changes? Well. I guess they need some practical feedback to show them (again) how little they actually know.
Just who is taking the risk? (Score:2)
It is always an acceptable risk if no one you really care about is on board. Remember some of the early debates about the amount of shielding for nuclear reactors... amazing how the calculus changed when the execs were told that one of their kids might be working in the compartment... Not like the shuttle disasters... or the Apollo capsule fire. It is said that the Romans would have the designer stand under an arch when the forms were taken down -- solved two problems if the structure was not sound. We seem
Re: Just who is taking the risk? (Score:2)
I'm not sure it's fair to judge the designer on the ability of the builders to implement the design...
But, yes.
Historic? (Score:2)
Why does everything seems to be "historic" these days...? Especially so the stuff that's already been done before.
It's a great mission and I'm looking forward to it and I really hope it all goes well. I'm delighted that man is finally going back to the Moon.
But it's hardly a "historic" thing again. It's been done already. Several times.
history (Score:1)
Not a big concern because NASA has a flawless record with heat shielding for manned space missions.
Yeah that's sarcasm, four count them FOUR failures including one catastrophic one besides 3 other close calls
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
History shows again and again
How nature points out the folly of men
Re: (Score:1)
and so this is simpler but they have known issues that experts are alarmed about ....you know