NASA's Orion: Safety concerns delay Moon mission

In 1967, the Apollo programme nearly came to an end after a catastrophe during its inaugural crewed ground test, preceding Apollo 1's first orbital flight. The entire three-person crew perished in a fire. Before this calamitous incident, the crew's commander, Gus Grissom, criticised the capsule's safety. He argued it had numerous flaws due to being constructed in haste.

It might appear that NASA would avoid similar deficiencies in constructing a new crewed vehicle intended for Moon travel. Nonetheless, the situation with the Orion capsule for the Artemis II mission raises concerns. Although the extent of the problems is not as severe as in 1967, it seems that the crucial lessons from prior disasters have not been fully embraced.

The Orion capsule is a contemporary counterpart of the Apollo capsule from over half a century ago. It cannot be described as a project completed hastily. Development on this vehicle has been ongoing for many years, and its first orbital test occurred a decade ago. At the end of 2022, as part of the Artemis I mission, Orion made a successful journey to the Moon, orbited it, and returned to Earth. It's worth noting, however, that this was an uncrewed flight. Since the tragic mission of Apollo 1, NASA has been exceedingly cautious and strives to prevent the loss of life. Despite this, accidents have occurred, as seen with two Space Shuttles.

The thought of astronaut fatalities during the Artemis II mission, which will be the first crewed flight to the Moon's orbit in the 21st century, is so alarming that paraphrasing Gene Kranz, the flight director during the Apollo 13 mission - "… is not an option". Thus, it's not surprising that the Artemis I mission proceeded without a crew but included myriad sensors. After meticulously analysing the data they gathered, it was possible to address the question of how safe the Orion capsule is for future crewed missions. Unfortunately, it revealed that in its current state, the capsule cannot guarantee complete safety for the crew during flight.

Apollo 1 bore numerous design flaws, chiefly concerning insufficient electrical wiring insulation and the cabin's highly flammable oxygen environment. Paradoxically, in an era when the first atomic bomb was constructed, there was apprehension about igniting the Earth's atmosphere. Meanwhile, similar hazards were overlooked when building the first Apollo capsule. The tragedy was exacerbated by poorly designed doors, which could not be easily opened.

Designers of the Orion capsule for the Artemis II mission have learned from these mistakes. Test versions of Orion have undergone months of crew evacuation drills after ocean landings. However, the flight version of this capsule, destined to take a four-person crew of Artemis II to the Moon, still presents an underdeveloped thermal shield, components connecting the service module with the capsule, and the power distribution system.

The thermal shield of the Orion capsule is marked by hundreds of potential vulnerabilities. Reports indicate that currently, over 100 locations are susceptible to damage, assessed during the wear analysis of the shield after the uncrewed landing of the Artemis I mission. Any significant damage to the thermal shield—designed for gradual wear—could lead to dire consequences that require no further explanation. Pins connecting the capsule with the service module penetrate the thermal shield, posing a risk of melting, which could weaken its protection against high temperatures during the return to Earth.

Another cause for concern is power distribution. Recalling the fictional retelling of the Apollo 13 story, appropriate power management is crucial. In the Orion capsule's case, deficiencies have been identified that could result in the loss of electronic system redundancy, inadequate power supply, and, consequently, loss of control over the vehicle's propulsion and risk of cabin depressurization.

NASA faces a significant challenge—it must rectify flaws in the Orion capsule. And time is of the essence. Although over a year and a half elapsed from the Apollo 1 disaster to the first successful crewed mission of Apollo 7, the Artemis I mission, though uncrewed, is viewed as a large leap forward compared to Apollo 1. Consequently, the forthcoming crewed Artemis II mission is being likened to Apollo 8's lunar orbit achievement.

Therefore, if any component does not perform adequately by September 2025, it is possible to anticipate another mission delay. This would be an additional factor slowing the Artemis programme’s progress, whose next phase—Artemis III—relies on the successful development of the lander and the approval of the Moon landing strategy, whether in 2026 or later.

Clearly, despite the immense pressure associated with potential failures, NASA remains steadfast in its goal. Today, it exercises greater caution, which means that the Moon, while seemingly within reach, continues to remain elusive.