4 ms·

> that's what "untested" means in spaceflight Sort of. At a certain threshold, everything is untested. I’d put this closer to modified than untested—the genera

> that's what "untested" means in spaceflight Sort of. At a certain threshold, everything is untested. I’d put this closer to modified than untested—the general config was tested in Artemis I and the specific configuration in a variety of ground tests.

wat10000 8mo ago
I'd say it's tested. It failed. Then they're flying it anyway. Wonderful stuff.
- randomNumber7 8mo ago
  And the next flight will use a different design. I wonder why?
  - treebeard901 8mo ago
    Artemis II is scheduled for re-entry to Earth on April 10th. That is when the heat shield issue will be the most dangerous. If it fails and the mission fails with loss of life while knowing it went ahead despite the IG report about the heat shield... It might be the end of NASA. Hopefully it will return safely.
    - JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
      > It might be the end of NASA If idiots and emotions rein, maybe. Then the centre of gravity for space exploration correctly shifts to Musk and China.
      - pirate787 8mo ago
        The center has already shifted to Musk, SpaceX is 83% of global lift capacity. Artemis is flying an obsolete rocket at insane cost, and higher risk.
      - wat10000 8mo ago
        For manned spaceflight, I'd say it already has. NASA itself has launched a grand total of one manned flight since July 2011. China has launched 14 and SpaceX has launched 20. Worse, the NASA vehicle is completely unsustainable. It was obsolete before it ever flew and it's so expensive that the mission launched yesterday likely costs more than the entire R&D cost of SpaceX's rocket and capsule. Probably China's too. The problem is that the purpose of NASA's manned spaceflight program isn't to explore space. It's to make the President look good (and I'm not just talking about the current one here) and funnel money to contractors. In that respect it's doing quite well.
  - deleted 8mo ago
    [deleted]
- P-Nuts 8mo ago
  The heat shield on Artemis I didn’t fail in the sense that were there a crew they would have died
  - wat10000 8mo ago
    It failed testing. What you’re describing is the exact same thinking that destroyed Challenger. The O-rings are leaking, they’re not supposed to do that at all, but they’re not leaking enough to cause a failure....
    - P-Nuts 7mo ago
      Is there any word on how the Artemis II heat shield fared, after the tweak to the reentry profile?

wat10000 8mo ago

I'd say it's tested. It failed. Then they're flying it anyway. Wonderful stuff.

randomNumber7 8mo ago
And the next flight will use a different design. I wonder why?
- treebeard901 8mo ago
  Artemis II is scheduled for re-entry to Earth on April 10th. That is when the heat shield issue will be the most dangerous. If it fails and the mission fails with loss of life while knowing it went ahead despite the IG report about the heat shield... It might be the end of NASA. Hopefully it will return safely.
  - JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
    > It might be the end of NASA If idiots and emotions rein, maybe. Then the centre of gravity for space exploration correctly shifts to Musk and China.
    - pirate787 8mo ago
      The center has already shifted to Musk, SpaceX is 83% of global lift capacity. Artemis is flying an obsolete rocket at insane cost, and higher risk.
    - wat10000 8mo ago
      For manned spaceflight, I'd say it already has. NASA itself has launched a grand total of one manned flight since July 2011. China has launched 14 and SpaceX has launched 20. Worse, the NASA vehicle is completely unsustainable. It was obsolete before it ever flew and it's so expensive that the mission launched yesterday likely costs more than the entire R&D cost of SpaceX's rocket and capsule. Probably China's too. The problem is that the purpose of NASA's manned spaceflight program isn't to explore space. It's to make the President look good (and I'm not just talking about the current one here) and funnel money to contractors. In that respect it's doing quite well.
- deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
P-Nuts 8mo ago
The heat shield on Artemis I didn’t fail in the sense that were there a crew they would have died
- wat10000 8mo ago
  It failed testing. What you’re describing is the exact same thinking that destroyed Challenger. The O-rings are leaking, they’re not supposed to do that at all, but they’re not leaking enough to cause a failure....
  - P-Nuts 7mo ago
    Is there any word on how the Artemis II heat shield fared, after the tweak to the reentry profile?