Ehemalige NASA-Wissenschaftler warnen vor möglichen Sicherheitsproblemen der Raumsonde Artemis II
Ehemalige NASA-Wissenschaftler warnen vor möglichen Sicherheitsproblemen der Raumsonde Artemis II
13 Kommentare
[deleted]
„Why would use use a very old technology when newer technology is available?“
$
If you operate a system within the bounds of its known and expected performance, then there should not be a concern. You do not design a bridge to hold a 1000 tons and then allow for the bridge to be loaded with 2000 tons of cars. All systems have “limitations” so no shit?
Rasky and the other scientist raise valid concerns, in my opinion. Instead of doing a workaround by changing the reentry plan, a PICA heat shield could have been developed in the last 3 or 4 years.
> While it’s not without risk, they have done a lot to mitigate that risk.
Before the Challenger flight, steps were taken to ‚mitigate‘ the O-ring issue. The so-called mitigations either did nothing, or made things worse. I can do nothing but hope that the ‚mitigations‘ were effective this time.
The conclusions of these 2 whistle blowers seems valid to me. An unmanned flight around the Moon would be the most sensible test at this time. A PICA heat shield could be prepared for the next flight, but that one should be unmanned also.
[removed]
Hmm… This feels a bit too much like deja vu.
Been worried for a while that this is going to end up being another Challenger, with NASA marching forward on something potentially unsafe because they are made to meet a deadline by the admin for political reasons (I imagine there will be a blurb in the SOTU about returning to the Moon). The fallout of this isn’t just going to end up permanently damaging the Artemis program and SLS, but will end up killing these astronauts. These kinds of things are also what killed Laika and Komarov in the Soviet space program. Per Aspera Ad Astra is a warning, not a mission statement.
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I’ve seen in this thread:
|Fewer Letters|More Letters|
|——-|———|—|
|[LEO](/r/Space/comments/1qtex5p/stub/o32w038 „Last usage“)|Low Earth Orbit (180-2000km)|
| |Law Enforcement Officer (most often mentioned during transport operations)|
|[MBA](/r/Space/comments/1qtex5p/stub/o32vu7r „Last usage“)|~~Moonba-~~ Mars Base Alpha|
|[PICA-X](/r/Space/comments/1qtex5p/stub/o33d2zp „Last usage“)|Phenolic Impregnated-Carbon Ablative heatshield compound, as modified by SpaceX|
|[SLS](/r/Space/comments/1qtex5p/stub/o33lgmn „Last usage“)|Space Launch System heavy-lift|
Decronym is now also available on Lemmy! Requests for support and new installations should be directed to the Contact address below.
—————-
^(4 acronyms in this thread; )[^(the most compressed thread commented on today)](/r/Space/comments/1qsdphl)^( has 14 acronyms.)
^([Thread #12121 for this sub, first seen 2nd Feb 2026, 03:19])
^[[FAQ]](http://decronym.xyz/) [^([Full list])](http://decronym.xyz/acronyms/Space) [^[Contact]](https://hachyderm.io/@Two9A) [^([Source code])](https://gistdotgithubdotcom/Two9A/1d976f9b7441694162c8)
What happens if the astronauts decide not to participate because it’s not worth the possible loss of life?
Edit: Are they even aware of the risk? Or is leadership suppressing by means of influence?
Just to state the obvious, none of us in this comment section have any capacity to judge whether or not they are right to be concerned. This is literally rocket science.
I’m really excited about this mission, and I hope this goes through safely
Generally, I believe testing things in small increments and proving repeatability is necessary. I feel like they should have built the system with manufacturing and scalability more in mind. If you look at the Saturn and Apollo missions, there were a lot more uncrewed missions before they put anyone on board, and smaller tests before they got to Apollo 8 sending people around the moon.
The cost for the Artemis program made it prohibitive to do ‚unnecessary‘ extra flights, and I understand that to some extent its like why repeat things learned in previous programs or that things are tested ‚better‘ these days with simulations, but at the same time any failure in this program is going to turn into a hindsight is 20/20 situation.
Anything is possible. Fact of life.
The reentry trajectory change is the part that worries me. Small changes in angle can have huge effects on heating rates and g-forces. Even a fraction of a degree off could push the system beyond its design limits.