What Happens if Artemis I Fails?

[spacenut]

I'm thinking of three types of failure. 

1. RUD,

2. Something major but not a RUD, or

3. Minor failure but causes mission failure. 

What would NASA do?  What would the public think?  How will it affect NASA's moon plans?

[rockets4life97]

What would NASA do? Form a committee to investigate.
What would the public think? somewhere between "aw shucks" and "awesome - it blew up!"
How will it affect NASA's moon plans? 3-5 year delay

[VSECOTSPE]

There will be a root-cause analysis.  Root causes of failures are always traced to someone(s) specific doing something specifically stupid.  There may also be an independent look by an external group of experts, who will also make organizational points about the NASA culture that led to those someone(s) specific doing something specifically stupid.  Adjustments will be made in response to the root cause and potentially the independent report.  And then the program will plow ahead as before.

What should happen is some real soul-searching and deep reflection about the complexity, fragility, and sustainability of Orion/SLS — the characteristics of a system that make it easy for someone to do something stupid — and whether it makes sense for the nation’s flagship human space exploration program to be solely reliant on such a system as its only means of returning humans to the Moon.  But even with the biggest congressional proponent of SLS retiring early next year, it is unlikely that NASA will seriously consider such options with former Senator Nelson, who is also personally invested in SLS, in the Administrator’s chair.

Real change probably requires Nelson’s retirement/removal and/or White House interest, which is unlikely until this Administration or the next one takes a fresh look circa 2024.  Barring loss of life, which is not on the line with Artemis I, it’s hard to see the White House paying real attention or going over Nelson’s head/getting rid of him given everything else on the Administration’s plate.  I’m not trying to be jaded or controversial, but unless astronauts die, NASA blowing up a big rocket and further delaying a human lunar return that the White House has let slip already just won’t be a national priority for the Administration.

[Hog]

Artemis-2 becomes uncrewed.

[deltaV]

Artemis-2 becomes uncrewed.

If Artemis-1 fails then Artemis-2 should become uncrewed, but I'm not sure that will happen. IIUC NASA's current plans do not include any in-space testing of the exploration upper stage or Orion life support systems before using them on crewed flights. NASA may similarly decide that a successful test of SLS isn't required before launching crew.

[butters]

Artemis-2 becomes uncrewed.

Does Artemis-3 become uncrewed also? Do they put crew on the first launch with the EUS? Do they order a production restart for an additional ICPS? The upper stage transition poses a problem if any of the first three missions needs to be repeated.

[TomH]

If Artemis I experiences RUD and shortly thereafter SS flies several times with no with failures, there is a small chance that a modified SH/SS with lengthened disposable S2 might be considered (studied) as a dissimilar redundant LV for Orion.

[DanClemmensen]

If Artemis I experiences RUD and shortly thereafter SS flies several times with no with failures, there is a small chance that a modified SH/SS with lengthened disposable S2 might be considered (studied) as a dissimilar redundant LV for Orion.

That works if it's an SLS failure. If it's an Orion failure, they might consider a a mission based on Crew Dragon and Starship HLS, with no SLS or Orion. This also works for an SLS failure. The huge problem is how to get this proposal through the political and administrative maze. It would require some external stimulus like the possibility of being scooped by a Chinese or private landing.

[Vahe231991]

Any fear that foam insulation might fall off the SLS rocket earmarked for the Artemis 1 mission during launch dissipated, because the payload fairing proved more resilient during the ascent phase of the launch than some NASA officials had thought despite minute damage to the insulation system. Since the Orion spacecraft is now on its way to the Moon, it is about time to lock this thread since the Orion's path to the moon is turning out smooth with no problems at all.

[DanClemmensen]

Any fear that foam insulation might fall off the SLS rocket earmarked for the Artemis 1 mission during launch dissipated, because the payload fairing proved more resilient during the ascent phase of the launch than some NASA officials had thought despite minute damage to the insulation system. Since the Orion spacecraft is now on its way to the Moon, it is about time to lock this thread since the Orion's path to the moon is turning out smooth with no problems at all.

Sorry, no. The thread is about Artemis 1, not about SLS alone. While the probability of success is now very high, the mission is not successful until Orion re-enters, lands under parachutes, and is recovered.

[Hog]

Any fear that foam insulation might fall off the SLS rocket earmarked for the Artemis 1 mission during launch dissipated, because the payload fairing proved more resilient during the ascent phase of the launch than some NASA officials had thought despite minute damage to the insulation system. Since the Orion spacecraft is now on its way to the Moon, it is about time to lock this thread since the Orion's path to the moon is turning out smooth with no problems at all.

Sorry, no. The thread is about Artemis 1, not about SLS alone. While the probability of success is now very high, the mission is not successful until Orion re-enters, lands under parachutes, and is recovered.

Sniped me.

Agree 100%.  We need those Orion-002 avionics back to be installed into Orion-003 so we can fly Artemis-2 at some point.

[redliox]

...now to ask 'What happens if Artemis II fails?'

[Vahe231991]

Any fear that foam insulation might fall off the SLS rocket earmarked for the Artemis 1 mission during launch dissipated, because the payload fairing proved more resilient during the ascent phase of the launch than some NASA officials had thought despite minute damage to the insulation system. Since the Orion spacecraft is now on its way to the Moon, it is about time to lock this thread since the Orion's path to the moon is turning out smooth with no problems at all.

Sorry, no. The thread is about Artemis 1, not about SLS alone. While the probability of success is now very high, the mission is not successful until Orion re-enters, lands under parachutes, and is recovered.

Sniped me.

Agree 100%.  We need those Orion-002 avionics back to be installed into Orion-003 so we can fly Artemis-2 at some point.

Found this at the Military Embedded Systems website:

Moreover, Ladwig states, the Artemis II vehicle will reuse select avionics from the Artemis I crew module; this practice will continue to dramatically increase, she says, to the point where the Artemis III pressure vessel capsule will be entirely refurbished for the Artemis VI mission.

Just as you speculated, the Artemis 2 module will reuse some avionic systems from the Artemis 1 module after the latter spacecraft lands in the Pacific Ocean.

[JEF_300]

I will throw out there that SLS perhaps could not have survived a public failure and another major delay. If SLS hadn't operated perfectly, it could likely be delayed until after New Glenn and Starship became operational, and at that point there are many other possible mission architectures, all of which are much cheaper. Because it did operate perfectly, NASA and Congress can argue that we should keep using SLS because it's ready and operational NOW.

Orion, on the other hand, I think would survive a failure, because there isn't really an alternative.

[Vahe231991]

Artemis-2 becomes uncrewed.

If Artemis-1 fails then Artemis-2 should become uncrewed, but I'm not sure that will happen. IIUC NASA's current plans do not include any in-space testing of the exploration upper stage or Orion life support systems before using them on crewed flights. NASA may similarly decide that a successful test of SLS isn't required before launching crew.

Since the Artemis 1 mission is going smoothly as planned at the moment, there's no way NASA would rework Artemis 2 as uncrewed because Artemis 1 is for testing the lunar orbital capabilities of the Orion, while Artemis 2 is a stepping stone for humans to land on the moon for the first time since 1972 but I should emphasize that NASA has yet to name the crew for the Artemis 2 mission.

[Hog]

Any fear that foam insulation might fall off the SLS rocket earmarked for the Artemis 1 mission during launch dissipated, because the payload fairing proved more resilient during the ascent phase of the launch than some NASA officials had thought despite minute damage to the insulation system. Since the Orion spacecraft is now on its way to the Moon, it is about time to lock this thread since the Orion's path to the moon is turning out smooth with no problems at all.

Sorry, no. The thread is about Artemis 1, not about SLS alone. While the probability of success is now very high, the mission is not successful until Orion re-enters, lands under parachutes, and is recovered.

Sniped me.

Agree 100%.  We need those Orion-002 avionics back to be installed into Orion-003 so we can fly Artemis-2 at some point.

Found this at the Military Embedded Systems website:

Moreover, Ladwig states, the Artemis II vehicle will reuse select avionics from the Artemis I crew module; this practice will continue to dramatically increase, she says, to the point where the Artemis III pressure vessel capsule will be entirely refurbished for the Artemis VI mission.

Just as you speculated, the Artemis 2 module will reuse some avionic systems from the Artemis 1 module after the latter spacecraft lands in the Pacific Ocean.

emphasis mine

I wasn't speculating about the avionics reuse.

Artemis-2 becomes uncrewed.

If Artemis-1 fails then Artemis-2 should become uncrewed, but I'm not sure that will happen. IIUC NASA's current plans do not include any in-space testing of the exploration upper stage or Orion life support systems before using them on crewed flights. NASA may similarly decide that a successful test of SLS isn't required before launching crew.

Since the Artemis 1 mission is going smoothly as planned at the moment, there's no way NASA would rework Artemis 2 as uncrewed because Artemis 1 is for testing the lunar orbital capabilities of the Orion, while Artemis 2 is a stepping stone for humans to land on the moon for the first time since 1972 but I should emphasize that NASA has yet to name the crew for the Artemis 2 mission.

I'd have thought it obvious that NASA wouldn't fly Artemis-2 uncrewed based on a successful Arty-1 mission. The thread title is "What happens if Artemis-1 FAILS" not "What happens if Artemis-1 is successful." (confused)

[Vahe231991]

Given that the Orion spacecraft made a flawless splashdown off the coast of Mexico's Baja Peninsula after re-entering the Earth's atmosphere, this thread may have to be locked.

[jadebenn]

Very glad this will forever be speculation.

[Lar]

It didn't fail.

If someone wants to start a similar thread for Artemis II, go for it.

locked.