Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Artemis II is not safe to fly

idlewords.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 667 posts

Re: Artemis II is not safe to fly

#81

Post by wiseowise »

idlewords wrote: post #76
turtletontine wrote: post #74

Someone please answer my obvious question. We sent successful missions to the moon sixty years ago. What heat shield material was used for the Apollo capsules, and why would we need something different now? Are the Artemis mission parameters totally different in a way that requires a new design? Or was Apollo incredibly dangerous and we got lucky they didn’t all fail catastrophically? The article mentions Orion is mu…

The Apollo command module used Avcoat, the same material as Orion. But there are two key differences: 1. The application method is different. Apollo applied it to a metal honeycomb structure with very small cells, while Orion uses blocks of the material. (NASA tried the honeycomb approach for Orion, but it was too labor-intensive). 2. Orion is much bigger and heavier than the Apollo command module. The informal conse…

> NASA tried the honeycomb approach for Orion, but it was too labor-intensive

So cost cutting, as always.

Re: Artemis II is not safe to fly

#82

Post by wiseowise »

ta8903 wrote: post #75
anitil wrote: post #3

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

I understand why NASA might be a little antsy but 100B over 25 years doesn't seem like a lot for America for a long horizon project.

[flagged]

Re: Artemis II is not safe to fly

#83

Post by cwillu »

GMoromisato wrote: post #77

This is a more balanced take, in my opinion: https://arstechnica.com/space/2026/01/nasa-chief-reviews-ori... Camarda is an outlier. The engineers at NASA believe it is safe. The astronauts believe it is safe. Former astronaut Danny Olivas was initially skeptical of the heat shield but came around. And note that the OP believes it is likely (maybe very likely) that the heat shield will work fine. It's hard for me to r…

"It is likely that Artemis II will land safely" and "Artemis II is Not Safe to Fly" are both compatible with the probability of a disaster on reentry being 10%.

Re: Artemis II is not safe to fly

#84

Post by bertylicious »

gedy wrote: post #53
oulu2006 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an interesting comment -- your life is precious brother, you might have something in store down the road :)

Depending on one's age, maybe not honestly? (Not the OP)

In your opinion: at what age does someone become unworthy of life?

Re: Artemis II is not safe to fly

#86

Post by wiseowise »

gedy wrote: post #53
oulu2006 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an interesting comment -- your life is precious brother, you might have something in store down the road :)

Depending on one's age, maybe not honestly? (Not the OP)

If they’re that age, they’re not qualified to be in the crew anyway.

Re: Artemis II is not safe to fly

#87

Post by adgjlsfhk1 »

GMoromisato wrote: post #77

This is a more balanced take, in my opinion: https://arstechnica.com/space/2026/01/nasa-chief-reviews-ori... Camarda is an outlier. The engineers at NASA believe it is safe. The astronauts believe it is safe. Former astronaut Danny Olivas was initially skeptical of the heat shield but came around. And note that the OP believes it is likely (maybe very likely) that the heat shield will work fine. It's hard for me to r…

for human spaceflight we want a lot more than "likely" (>50%). The standard is usually "extremely likely" (~1/100 to 1/1000 chance of failure)

Re: Artemis II is not safe to fly

#88

Post by lanternfish »

wiseowise wrote: post #81
idlewords wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Apollo command module used Avcoat, the same material as Orion. But there are two key differences: 1. The application method is different. Apollo applied it to a metal honeycomb structure with very small cells, while Orion uses blocks of the material. (NASA tried the honeycomb approach for Orion, but it was too labor-intensive). 2. Orion is much bigger and heavier than the Apollo command module. The informal conse…

> NASA tried the honeycomb approach for Orion, but it was too labor-intensive So cost cutting, as always.

Engineering is done in the context of constraints, cost is one constraint - and its a relatively conserved constraint. Saving labor in one area allows for more care in other areas. Especially given that labor is often not cost constrained, but skill constrained, which is less elastic.

Re: Artemis II is not safe to fly

#89

Post by wiseowise »

dundarious wrote: post #49
delichon wrote: post #22

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.

Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori

I wonder how many young minds were twisted by old hypocrites.

Re: Artemis II is not safe to fly

#90

Post by adgjlsfhk1 »

wiseowise wrote: post #81
idlewords wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Apollo command module used Avcoat, the same material as Orion. But there are two key differences: 1. The application method is different. Apollo applied it to a metal honeycomb structure with very small cells, while Orion uses blocks of the material. (NASA tried the honeycomb approach for Orion, but it was too labor-intensive). 2. Orion is much bigger and heavier than the Apollo command module. The informal conse…

> NASA tried the honeycomb approach for Orion, but it was too labor-intensive So cost cutting, as always.

Apollo was ridiculously expensive. it was a proof of concept, but not sustainable for long term exploration
Post reply on HN