[4khilles]

The heat shield is a bit different, and the reentry profile is a bit different as well.

[russdill]

I suppose "this will be the first time we can test this slightly modified heat shield in the slightly different pressures and temperatures that it will have to endure." isn't quite as eye catching.

[randomNumber7]

With humans on board? Even if they are not necessary for the actual mission?

[andrewflnr]

Yeah, that's what "untested" means in spaceflight.

[JumpCrisscross]

> 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]

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

[P-Nuts]

The heat shield on Artemis I didn’t fail in the sense that were there a crew they would have died

[wat10000]

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....

[randomNumber7]

And the next flight will use a different design. I wonder why?

[treebeard901]

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.

[groby_b]

I mean, sure. But that's like equipping a sub with a screen door and claiming that in the grand scheme of things, it's a slightly different door with slightly different permeability characteristics.