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

291–300 of 667 posts

Re: Artemis II is not safe to fly

#291

Post by nikanj »

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 very first Apollo attempt killed three astronauts. We would need something different now because the cold-war-crazy days are behind us, and we don't push ahead with missions that might end up in casualties.

Re: Artemis II is not safe to fly

#292

Post by chadd »

I'm literally guest lecturing at a Harvard class tomorrow on systemic failures in decision making, using the Columbia and Challenger disasters as case studies, and changed my slides last night to include Artemis II because it could literally happen again.

This broken safety culture has been around since the beginning of the Shuttle program.

In 1980, Gregg Easterbrook published "Goodbye, Columbia" in The Washington Monthly [1], warning that NASA's "success-oriented planning" and political pressure were creating the conditions for catastrophe. He essentially predicted Columbia's heat shield failures in the article 1 year before the first flight.

Challenger in 1986, and the Rogers Commission identified hierarchy, communication failures, and management overriding engineering judgment.

Then Columbia happened in 2003. The CAIB found NASA had not implemented the 1986 recommendations [2].

Now Charles Camarda (who flew the first shuttle mission after Columbia and is literally a heat shield expert!) is saying it's happening again.

[1] https://www.iasa-intl.com/folders/shuttle/GoodbyeColumbia.ht...

[2] Columbia Accident Investigation Board Report, Chapter 8: https://www.nasa.gov/columbia/caib/html/start.html

Re: Artemis II is not safe to fly

#293

Post by GorbachevyChase »

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…

Or Apollo development was a massive boondoggle that would never work and a small subset of those involved faked it to avoid being fired or going to prison. I know that directors of multibillion dollar projects lying to save their own skin is unheard of, but hear me out.

Artemis, launching on April Fools Day, seems like a joke waiting to happen.

Re: Artemis II is not safe to fly

#294

Post by randomNumber7 »

I would like to understand why it happens so often to organizations that a currupted and dyfunctional behaviour takes over. And it seems to happen more often to institutions run by governments.

Examples could be the Challenger disaster where managers overruled the engineers (who said in a meeting a launch was too dangerous) or the Boing 737max. Also a lot of companies in germany that I experienced (as employee and as consultant) seem similiar.

One reason could be (and I saw that myself) is that there can be a situation where the best employees start leaving. It's likely natural since they can find something else easier than the others.

Re: Artemis II is not safe to fly

#295

Post by sidewndr46 »

voidUpdate wrote: post #210
Mikhail_K wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Interestingly, the article https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ddi792xdfNXcBwF8qpDUxmZz... > by heat shield expert and Shuttle astronaut Charles Camarda, the former Director of Engineering…

Using the same o-rings afterwards is surprising, I've heard that the manufacturer was surprised that they were being used for that purpose because they weren't rated for that. Also I'm not sure the assertion is correct. If the sealant and O-Rings were adequate, the joint would not have failed. It was suboptimal, and increased risk, sure, but it in itself wasn't the reason for the accident. It was the joint and the o-…

Surprised? One of the engineers was literally on the phone with NASA the morning of the disaster begging them not to launch. He was overruled by management.

Re: Artemis II is not safe to fly

#296

Post by voxic11 »

dataflow wrote: post #34

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?

Because even in the worst case what we are really talking about is just much higher risk than the government is claiming, but its still far more likely to succeed than fail. Plenty of people would take a 1 in 10 or 1 in 100 chance of dying if it meant they could walk on the moon.

Re: Artemis II is not safe to fly

#297

Post by allenrb »

drfloyd51 wrote: post #277
bregma wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Houston, this is Golden One. I'm looking down on the big, beautiful, blue world. They love me down there. They all love me. I'm the greatest astronaut ever in the history of mankind. No one has ever orbited like this before." Yeah, you may be right.

Maybe he should ride on the Artemis II mission?

Strapped to one of the boosters?

Re: Artemis II is not safe to fly

#298

Post by allenrb »

ekianjo wrote: post #252
tikhonj wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Based on some rough numbers, NASA's budget (around $24B) would be I also looked up the NSF's 2024 budget, which, at $9B, was much lower than I expected.

> with a pretty great return in research, engineering and education to boot. If a company could spend 24B in research they would probably produce a lot more things than NASA

Absolutely! Think of the many new ways to display advertising that are being neglected while we foolishly launch people and things into space.

Re: Artemis II is not safe to fly

#299

Post by idlewords »

shadowofneptune wrote: post #276

A lot of the discussion overlooks or wishes to avoid an uncomfortable problem with the Artemis program: Artemis III's hardware will not be ready for the forseeable future. The program has had multiple shakeups so far. This is a program heading for cancellation. The flight risk is surely acceptable if this is not the first flight of many but the last.

I think you mean Artemis IV (the moon landing)? Artemis III is now a near Earth orbit mission to dock with whatever mockup lander SpaceX or Blue Origin can throw up in time.
Post reply on HN