Former astronaut once again blasts NASA decision to fly Artemis-2 manned
Charles Camarda on the first shuttle flight
after the Columbia failure.
The opposition to NASA’s decision to fly humans in the Orion capsule around the Moon with a questionable heat shield continues. Charles Camarda, an engineer and former NASA astronaut who has repeatedly expressed concerns about that heat shield and had been invited to attend the review meeting that NASA administrator Isaacman had arranged to ease his concerns, has now revealed his concerns were not eased in the slightest by that meeting, and that the Ars Technica article by Eric Berger that suggested otherwise was wrong, and that he is still “outraged” at NASA’s bad engineering decisions.
The rage you witnessed was my observing the exact behaviors used to construct risk and flight rationale which caused both Challenger and Columbia Accidents. Using “tools” inappropriately and then claiming results to be “Conservative.” Not to mention the reliance on Monte Carlo simulations to predict failure probabilities which were also proven to be inaccurate by orders of magnitude in my book “Mission Out of Control” which you claim to have read.
I suggest, in the spirit of transparency, you should ask NASA to release just the “Findings” of NESC Report TI-23-01849 Volume I. Finding 1 states the analysis cannot accurately predict crack initiation and propagation at flight conditions. And there was so much more which was conveniently not presented.
In other words, he finds NASA’s engineering claims that Orion’s heat shield will work using a different less stressful return trajectory as it dives back into the atmosphere about 25,000 mph to be false and untrustworthy. Worse, he sees it as proof that this is a continuation of the same culture at NASA that resulted in the Columbia failure.
Some of the exact same people responsible for failing to understand the shortcomings of the Crater Analysis tool (used tiny pieces of foam impacts to Shuttle tiles to predict a strike from a piece of foam which was 6000 larger and which caused the Columbia Accident) were on the Artemis Tiger Team now claiming they could predict the outcome of the Orion heatshield using a tool (similar to CRATER) called the Crack Identification Tool (CIT) which was also not physics based and relied on predictions of the key paramenter, permeability, which they claim to be the “root” cause, pressure, to vary by three orders of magnitude (that’s over 1000x).
In defense of NASA, those engineers had also presented data that showed Orion’s hull was strong enough to survive re-entry, even if the heat shield failed entirely. It is unclear if Camarda’s objections here apply to that data as well.
Regardless, his strong public disagreement with NASA on this once again raises serious questions about the upcoming manned Artemis-2 mission, set to launch sometime in the February to March time frame.
On Christmas Eve 1968 three Americans became the first humans to visit another world. What they did to celebrate was unexpected and profound, and will be remembered throughout all human history. Genesis: the Story of Apollo 8, Robert Zimmerman's classic history of humanity's first journey to another world, tells that story, and it is now available as both an ebook and an audiobook, both with a foreword by Valerie Anders and a new introduction by Robert Zimmerman.
The print edition can be purchased at Amazon or from any other book seller. If you want an autographed copy the price is $60 for the hardback and $45 for the paperback, plus $8 shipping for each. Go here for purchasing details. The ebook is available everywhere for $5.99 (before discount) at amazon, or direct from my ebook publisher, ebookit. If you buy it from ebookit you don't support the big tech companies and the author gets a bigger cut much sooner.
The audiobook is also available at all these vendors, and is also free with a 30-day trial membership to Audible.
"Not simply about one mission, [Genesis] is also the history of America's quest for the moon... Zimmerman has done a masterful job of tying disparate events together into a solid account of one of America's greatest human triumphs."--San Antonio Express-News
Charles Camarda on the first shuttle flight
after the Columbia failure.
The opposition to NASA’s decision to fly humans in the Orion capsule around the Moon with a questionable heat shield continues. Charles Camarda, an engineer and former NASA astronaut who has repeatedly expressed concerns about that heat shield and had been invited to attend the review meeting that NASA administrator Isaacman had arranged to ease his concerns, has now revealed his concerns were not eased in the slightest by that meeting, and that the Ars Technica article by Eric Berger that suggested otherwise was wrong, and that he is still “outraged” at NASA’s bad engineering decisions.
The rage you witnessed was my observing the exact behaviors used to construct risk and flight rationale which caused both Challenger and Columbia Accidents. Using “tools” inappropriately and then claiming results to be “Conservative.” Not to mention the reliance on Monte Carlo simulations to predict failure probabilities which were also proven to be inaccurate by orders of magnitude in my book “Mission Out of Control” which you claim to have read.
I suggest, in the spirit of transparency, you should ask NASA to release just the “Findings” of NESC Report TI-23-01849 Volume I. Finding 1 states the analysis cannot accurately predict crack initiation and propagation at flight conditions. And there was so much more which was conveniently not presented.
In other words, he finds NASA’s engineering claims that Orion’s heat shield will work using a different less stressful return trajectory as it dives back into the atmosphere about 25,000 mph to be false and untrustworthy. Worse, he sees it as proof that this is a continuation of the same culture at NASA that resulted in the Columbia failure.
Some of the exact same people responsible for failing to understand the shortcomings of the Crater Analysis tool (used tiny pieces of foam impacts to Shuttle tiles to predict a strike from a piece of foam which was 6000 larger and which caused the Columbia Accident) were on the Artemis Tiger Team now claiming they could predict the outcome of the Orion heatshield using a tool (similar to CRATER) called the Crack Identification Tool (CIT) which was also not physics based and relied on predictions of the key paramenter, permeability, which they claim to be the “root” cause, pressure, to vary by three orders of magnitude (that’s over 1000x).
In defense of NASA, those engineers had also presented data that showed Orion’s hull was strong enough to survive re-entry, even if the heat shield failed entirely. It is unclear if Camarda’s objections here apply to that data as well.
Regardless, his strong public disagreement with NASA on this once again raises serious questions about the upcoming manned Artemis-2 mission, set to launch sometime in the February to March time frame.
On Christmas Eve 1968 three Americans became the first humans to visit another world. What they did to celebrate was unexpected and profound, and will be remembered throughout all human history. Genesis: the Story of Apollo 8, Robert Zimmerman's classic history of humanity's first journey to another world, tells that story, and it is now available as both an ebook and an audiobook, both with a foreword by Valerie Anders and a new introduction by Robert Zimmerman.
The print edition can be purchased at Amazon or from any other book seller. If you want an autographed copy the price is $60 for the hardback and $45 for the paperback, plus $8 shipping for each. Go here for purchasing details. The ebook is available everywhere for $5.99 (before discount) at amazon, or direct from my ebook publisher, ebookit. If you buy it from ebookit you don't support the big tech companies and the author gets a bigger cut much sooner.
The audiobook is also available at all these vendors, and is also free with a 30-day trial membership to Audible.
"Not simply about one mission, [Genesis] is also the history of America's quest for the moon... Zimmerman has done a masterful job of tying disparate events together into a solid account of one of America's greatest human triumphs."--San Antonio Express-News
This is the worst part, in my opinon (bolding mine)
‘Some of the **exact same people** responsible for **failing to understand the shortcomings** of the Crater Analysis tool (used tiny pieces of foam impacts to Shuttle tiles to predict a strike from a piece of foam which was 6000 larger and which caused the Columbia Accident) were on the Artemis Tiger Team now claiming they could predict the outcome of the Orion heatshield using a tool (similar to CRATER) called the Crack Identification Tool (CIT) which was also **not physics based and relied on predictions** of the key paramenter, permeability, which they claim to be the “root” cause, pressure, to vary by **three orders of magnitude** (that’s over 1000x).’
When you have the same people responsible for previous deaths assuming that software is capable enough to determine outcomes, what is that but a recipe for further problems? If the astronauts make it home alive, but Orion’s heatshield is again damaged in ways that NASA doesn’t expect and (apparently) doesn’t understand, will they play Russian roulette again with the Artemis 3 crew, or will they finally realize that there’s no substitute for flight experience?
There was an interesting set of exchanges involving Camarda on X, earlier today:
SERGE DUMONT: I prefer to focus on technical issues. What solutions would you recommend?
CAMARDA: There is not enough time or space to explain. I did present a 60-page report to HQ before I retired. Crickets. The last chapter of my book hints at the plan.
DUMONT: Is that report public? I am sure a few people here would take a look.
CAMARDA: I did not make it public yet. I would like Jared to see it first. I touch on it in Chapter 8 of my book. Back in 2019. We can do so much more with AI today. Let’s get NASA out of the dark ages.
. . .
CIRRUS147: So suppose you are right? Tooling could be off? But the meeting confirmed that even if it happened the Capsule integrity would be fine on this trajectory. So with the current plan we will get the learning, no delays and also ensure crew safety it seems. So still the right decision is to proceed… albiet with an additional small but managable risk factor, like an aircraft taking off with a *possible* defect, on a Non-Essential item. Risks compound, and accidents are always a chain, so it should still be discussed however.
CAMARDA: We really cannot ensure crew safety if we cannot predict when the Heatshield fails. That is why we create analytical models that predict behavior up to and including failure! We cannot bound this problem otherwise.
. . .
Well, I would love to see Camarda’s report, when he is in a position to make it public.
Nate P: According to NASA, it is using a redesigned heat shield on the next Artemis mission, so these issues will be replaced with flying an untested redesigned heat shield rather than one with known problems.
P.S. I’m not sure that posting his response essay on LinkIn was the best way to get his views out there; normatively, you need a LinkedIn account to read any posts on LinkedIn, and a lot of people are not on LinkedIn, or simply refuse to do so. That limits his reach. I grok that his official website is not set up with a blog option, and his X account is not verified, so his character count is limited, unless he wants to post it as a set of image files or a long string of tweets.
His post on X, however, has over 25,000 views, and has a mounting set of discussions responding to and quoting it, so there’s an awareness of it out there, growing.
So far as I can tell, neither Eric Berger nor Jared Isaacman has responded publicly to Camarda’s essay.
Robert Zimmerman: great. I’m glad NASA has so much confidence in their models that they don’t feel the need to do extensive real-world testing.
(for the slow: yes, that’s sarcasm)