NASA reckons the Artemis II heat shield performed like a champ
(2026/04/22)
- Reference: 1776867199
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2026/04/22/nasa_artemis_ii_heat_shield/
- Source link:
Initial reports have confirmed NASA's assessment that the Orion heat shield kept the Artemis II crew safe during re-entry.
Clock is ticking for NASA to fix bucket of issues before next Artemis mission [1]FROM THE ARCHIVES
The shield had been hotly debated before the mission's April 1 launch. When the Orion capsule used for Artemis I returned to Earth in 2022, engineers found unexpected cracks and charring (see below), prompting a delay to Artemis II while a fix was developed.
[2]
Above: Artemis II heat shield photographed by Navy divers shortly after splashdown ( Pic: US Navy )
Below: Post-mission Orion heatshield from Artemis I mission ( Photo: NASA )
[3]
After extensive testing, NASA concluded the problems had to do with gas within the coating, caused by the re-entry technique used by Artemis I. The maneuver involved the capsule dipping into the atmosphere to scrub off speed, then skipping off (much like a pebble on water) before performing a final re-entry. The benefit of the approach is greater precision and reduced heating, but at the cost of trapped gases degrading the shield.
Rather than redesign the heat shield, [4]NASA chose to change the reentry trajectory and drop the skip entirely. That option attracted some criticism. Former astronaut Charles Camarda, who flew on the STS-114 Space Shuttle Return To Flight mission, [5]called the plan to fly Artemis II with the heatshield "a very bad decision."
However, [6]according to NASA, when they examined the head shield after Artemis II splashed down on April 10, it was evident things had gone according to the refined plan. The agency wrote that "initial inspections of the system found it performed as expected, with no unusual conditions identified.
"Diver imagery of the spacecraft's heat shield initially taken after splashdown and further inspections on the recovery ship found the char loss behavior observed on Artemis I was significantly reduced, both in terms of quantity and size. Performance also was consistent with arc jet facility ground testing performed after Artemis I."
[7]
NASA wants to do a more detailed examination, and intends to transport the heat shield to the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville for additional scans so NASA can verify how the material performed during re-entry.
[8]Blue Origin nails the landing, but puts the payload satellite in the wrong orbit
[9]NASA gets the ball rolling on its part in Europe's jinxed Mars rover mission
[10]Fission impossible: Uncle Sam wants nuclear reactors in space by 2031
[11]NASA insiders oddly relaxed about latest budget threats
The trajectory change also had little effect on landing accuracy: Orion splashed down 2.9 miles (c 4.7km) from the targeted landing site - impressive, though consistent with the precision of Apollo-era missions.
Beyond the heat shield, the rest of the Artemis and SLS systems performed well upon initial inspection. Lessons from Artemis I also meant significantly less damage to ground systems during launch, leaving processing for the Artemis III mission in 2027 unlikely to be disrupted by any current findings.
[12]
Artemis III - originally the lunar landing mission - is now set to rendezvous with commercial lunar lander hardware in Earth orbit. Whether that hardware is ready in time is another question entirely. ®
Get our [13]Tech Resources
[1] https://www.theregister.com/2024/05/03/nasa_artemis_oig/
[2] https://regmedia.co.uk/2026/04/22/heatshield.jpg
[3] https://regmedia.co.uk/2024/12/06/post_mission_orion_heat_shield.jpg
[4] https://www.theregister.com/2024/12/06/nasa_orion_heatshield_investigation/
[5] https://www.linkedin.com/posts/charlescamarda_nasa-just-made-a-very-bad-decision-today-activity-7270536065856294912-lgjS/
[6] https://www.nasa.gov/missions/nasa-on-track-for-future-missions-with-initial-artemis-ii-assessments/
[7] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2aejwrZ51AeO1IngvtMaBrgAAABU&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[8] https://www.theregister.com/2026/04/20/blue_origin_nails_the_landing/
[9] https://www.theregister.com/2026/04/17/nasa_rosalind_franklin/
[10] https://www.theregister.com/2026/04/15/national_initiative_for_american_space/
[11] https://www.theregister.com/2026/04/14/nasa_budget_insider_comment/
[12] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44aejwrZ51AeO1IngvtMaBrgAAABU&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[13] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Clock is ticking for NASA to fix bucket of issues before next Artemis mission [1]FROM THE ARCHIVES
The shield had been hotly debated before the mission's April 1 launch. When the Orion capsule used for Artemis I returned to Earth in 2022, engineers found unexpected cracks and charring (see below), prompting a delay to Artemis II while a fix was developed.
[2]
Above: Artemis II heat shield photographed by Navy divers shortly after splashdown ( Pic: US Navy )
Below: Post-mission Orion heatshield from Artemis I mission ( Photo: NASA )
[3]
After extensive testing, NASA concluded the problems had to do with gas within the coating, caused by the re-entry technique used by Artemis I. The maneuver involved the capsule dipping into the atmosphere to scrub off speed, then skipping off (much like a pebble on water) before performing a final re-entry. The benefit of the approach is greater precision and reduced heating, but at the cost of trapped gases degrading the shield.
Rather than redesign the heat shield, [4]NASA chose to change the reentry trajectory and drop the skip entirely. That option attracted some criticism. Former astronaut Charles Camarda, who flew on the STS-114 Space Shuttle Return To Flight mission, [5]called the plan to fly Artemis II with the heatshield "a very bad decision."
However, [6]according to NASA, when they examined the head shield after Artemis II splashed down on April 10, it was evident things had gone according to the refined plan. The agency wrote that "initial inspections of the system found it performed as expected, with no unusual conditions identified.
"Diver imagery of the spacecraft's heat shield initially taken after splashdown and further inspections on the recovery ship found the char loss behavior observed on Artemis I was significantly reduced, both in terms of quantity and size. Performance also was consistent with arc jet facility ground testing performed after Artemis I."
[7]
NASA wants to do a more detailed examination, and intends to transport the heat shield to the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville for additional scans so NASA can verify how the material performed during re-entry.
[8]Blue Origin nails the landing, but puts the payload satellite in the wrong orbit
[9]NASA gets the ball rolling on its part in Europe's jinxed Mars rover mission
[10]Fission impossible: Uncle Sam wants nuclear reactors in space by 2031
[11]NASA insiders oddly relaxed about latest budget threats
The trajectory change also had little effect on landing accuracy: Orion splashed down 2.9 miles (c 4.7km) from the targeted landing site - impressive, though consistent with the precision of Apollo-era missions.
Beyond the heat shield, the rest of the Artemis and SLS systems performed well upon initial inspection. Lessons from Artemis I also meant significantly less damage to ground systems during launch, leaving processing for the Artemis III mission in 2027 unlikely to be disrupted by any current findings.
[12]
Artemis III - originally the lunar landing mission - is now set to rendezvous with commercial lunar lander hardware in Earth orbit. Whether that hardware is ready in time is another question entirely. ®
Get our [13]Tech Resources
[1] https://www.theregister.com/2024/05/03/nasa_artemis_oig/
[2] https://regmedia.co.uk/2026/04/22/heatshield.jpg
[3] https://regmedia.co.uk/2024/12/06/post_mission_orion_heat_shield.jpg
[4] https://www.theregister.com/2024/12/06/nasa_orion_heatshield_investigation/
[5] https://www.linkedin.com/posts/charlescamarda_nasa-just-made-a-very-bad-decision-today-activity-7270536065856294912-lgjS/
[6] https://www.nasa.gov/missions/nasa-on-track-for-future-missions-with-initial-artemis-ii-assessments/
[7] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2aejwrZ51AeO1IngvtMaBrgAAABU&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[8] https://www.theregister.com/2026/04/20/blue_origin_nails_the_landing/
[9] https://www.theregister.com/2026/04/17/nasa_rosalind_franklin/
[10] https://www.theregister.com/2026/04/15/national_initiative_for_american_space/
[11] https://www.theregister.com/2026/04/14/nasa_budget_insider_comment/
[12] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44aejwrZ51AeO1IngvtMaBrgAAABU&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[13] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Eclectic Man
I was going to suggest that Artemis III could practice in LEO with a partial mock up of the Lunar Lander as they would not need everything to work. No need for the moon-suits for example, but as NASA has not even specified the dimensions of the lander's don/doff area* yet or other things, even a partially functioning mock up might not be feasible yet.
* https://www.theregister.com/2026/04/21/nasa_oig_spacesuit_report/
ravenviz
Since a properly weighted mockup would still require functional attitude control, I suspect developing such a vehicle would only serve to delay the delivery of the real thing even further.
Anonymous Coward
It's hard for NASA to properly plan ahead when the biggest risk to program goals is an anti-science government in Washington.
An advanced species would have expanded the workforce and parallelized development to shorten the timeline.
But that can be a real challenge when the "leaders" think the world is 6000 years old, Covid is a hoax, climate change isn't real, and anything with a rocket engine is useless unless it can blow up an Iranian elementary school.
maneuver
JimmyPage
maneuvre
Re: maneuver
Aladdin Sane
manoeuvre
Re: maneuver
Simon Harris
Or, if the recovery team accidentally dunks an astronaut in the sea...
Manoeuvre board.
Re: maneuver
Anonymous Custard
Only if he's recovered by a surfer...
Great news about the heat shield.
What I’m wondering though is that if Artemis III and IV require a lander, and there isn’t even a working prototype yet, surely it’s going to take years to develop accurate simulators, and then train prospective crew, both in terms of LEO operations, and in terms of lunar injection with a new payload configuration, lunar orbit operations, landing, and then getting back again.
I’d be (pleasantly) surprised if we see a launch in 2028, let alone sooner.
I suspect NASA already knows this.