Live data from Hacker News

Artemis II is not safe to fly

idlewords.com

11–20 of 667 posts

Re: Artemis II is not safe to fly

#11
> if a commercial crew capsule (SpaceX Dragon or Boeing Starliner) returned to Earth with the kind of damage seen on Orion, NASA would insist on a redesign and an unmanned test flight to validate it.

Are you sure about that?

https://spaceflightnow.com/2022/05/24/spacex-swapping-heat-s...

Re: Artemis II is not safe to fly

#12
post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Saturn 5 had a flawless record. The leftover space shuttle parts which SLS is cobbled together from, not so much. SRBs are inherently dangerous, theyre designed to quickly launch nukes from silos, not people. And Orion is just a typical modern Boeing project. So far its fallen at every hurdle right?

Orion is a Lockheed (CM) and Airbus (ESM) project.

Yeah, I thought it was Starliner on top. I dont know anything about Orion then. SLS is very crappy and disappointing, its using shitty old space shuttle tech, + its ridiculously expensive in terms of payload to orbit, but it will probably work.

I didnt know, cus I just dont give a shit about this stupid project.

Re: Artemis II is not safe to fly

#15
post #2

Great read and interesting article. Hard to believe that NASA would risk astronauts lives simply to save face, but that appears to be what's going to happen.

Astronauts are smart folks. They can vote with their feet.

What a horrible (preventable) position to be in, though.

Re: Artemis II is not safe to fly

#16

The article seems compelling, but experience tells me to get both sides of a story before judging. Anyone know if there's a detailed response from NASA to the article?

https://www.nasa.gov/blogs/missions/2026/03/30/nasas-artemis...

"countdown clock started ticking down" "to a targeted launch time of 6:24 p.m. on Wednesday, April 1."

Re: Artemis II is not safe to fly

#17
post #2

Great read and interesting article. Hard to believe that NASA would risk astronauts lives simply to save face, but that appears to be what's going to happen.

They’ve killed dozens during the shuttle program , or did you forget ? Also a number during Gemini, Mercury and Appollo. Terrible safety record , and 5x worse than Soyuz . Shuttle fatality rate was 1/10. Approaching Russian roulette odds

Re: Artemis II is not safe to fly

#18
post #4
post #2

Great read and interesting article. Hard to believe that NASA would risk astronauts lives simply to save face, but that appears to be what's going to happen.

Was there ever a risk-free spaceflight? Pretty sure even with this finding this flight would be safer than any Apollo.

Never risk free , but Soyuz hardly lost any crew over its 50+ years

Re: Artemis II is not safe to fly

#19
post #17
post #2

Great read and interesting article. Hard to believe that NASA would risk astronauts lives simply to save face, but that appears to be what's going to happen.

They’ve killed dozens during the shuttle program , or did you forget ? Also a number during Gemini, Mercury and Appollo. Terrible safety record , and 5x worse than Soyuz . Shuttle fatality rate was 1/10. Approaching Russian roulette odds

It’s the American roulette

Re: Artemis II is not safe to fly

#20
> “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/

Post reply on HN