Artemis II Status Report: Analyzing the Helium Anomaly and Revised Launch Architecture

Introduction to the Artemis II Mission Architecture

The Artemis II mission stands as a defining milestone in contemporary human spaceflight, serving as the first crewed lunar operation since the Apollo 17 mission concluded in December 1972.¹ Operating under the auspices of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the mission is designed to execute a ten-day circumlunar transit utilizing the Space Launch System rocket and the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle.³ The foundational objective of this expedition is not to achieve a lunar landing, but rather to conduct an exhaustive flight test of human-rated spacecraft systems within the unforgiving environment of deep space.¹ This involves the comprehensive validation of the Environmental Control and Life Support Systems, the Active Thermal Control System, deep space navigation arrays, and manual flight control interfaces.¹

Originally manifested for a primary launch window in early March 2026, the mission profile recently experienced a significant schedule adjustment.⁷ During post-test operations following the successful conclusion of a major fueling rehearsal in late February 2026, launch vehicle engineers detected an anomalous interruption in the gaseous helium flow within the Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage of the Space Launch System.⁷ Because highly pressurized helium is an absolute mechanical requirement for purging propellant lines and providing ullage pressure to the cryogenic tanks, this interruption compromised the launch readiness of the entire vehicle.¹⁰ Due to the physical location of the suspected hardware faults and the prevailing meteorological conditions at Launch Complex 39B, in-situ repairs at the launch pad were deemed logistically unfeasible.¹² Consequently, mission managers authorized a rollback of the integrated launch vehicle to the Vehicle Assembly Building, effectively nullifying the March launch window and pushing the targeted launch date to no earlier than early April 2026.⁷

This comprehensive research report provides a highly detailed, academic analysis of the technical parameters defining the current status of the Artemis II mission. It examines the mechanical and thermodynamic principles underlying the recent helium pressurization anomaly, the complex orbital mechanics dictating launch window availability, the chemical architecture of the life support and thermal management systems, the material science of the ablative heat shield, and the broader implications of schedule adjustments on the future of the Artemis campaign and deep space exploration.

Crew Composition and Anthropometric Considerations

Unlike the Apollo program, which was restricted to crews of three due to the volumetric constraints of the Command Module, the Artemis program utilizes the significantly larger Orion spacecraft, which is engineered to accommodate a crew of four astronauts for missions lasting up to twenty-one days without requiring docking to a larger habitat.³ The selection of the Artemis II crew was announced in early 2023, bringing together a diverse group of aviators and scientists to test the operational limits of the spacecraft.²

The mission is commanded by Reid Wiseman, a decorated naval aviator and engineer who previously spent 165 days aboard the International Space Station.² Serving as the mission pilot is Victor Glover, an accomplished test pilot who previously commanded the first operational crewed flight of the SpaceX Crew Dragon spacecraft.³ The role of mission specialist one is filled by Christina Hammock Koch, an engineer who currently holds the record for the longest single continuous spaceflight by a woman, totaling 328 days in orbit.³ Finally, mission specialist two is Jeremy Hansen, a fighter pilot representing the Canadian Space Agency, marking the first time a non-American astronaut will travel beyond low Earth orbit.⁴

Astronaut	Mission Role	Agency Affiliation	Professional Background
Reid Wiseman	Commander	National Aeronautics and Space Administration	Naval Aviator, Systems Engineer, Space Station Veteran
Victor Glover	Pilot	National Aeronautics and Space Administration	Test Pilot, Commercial Crew Veteran
Christina Koch	Mission Specialist	National Aeronautics and Space Administration	Electrical Engineer, Long-Duration Flight Record Holder
Jeremy Hansen	Mission Specialist	Canadian Space Agency	Royal Canadian Air Force Fighter Pilot

The diverse anthropometric profiles of the crew are essential for validating the ergonomic design of the Orion cabin, the adjustable seating mechanisms, and the next-generation pressure suits. These suits are specifically engineered to provide life support for up to six days in the event of a catastrophic depressurization of the crew module, while also featuring highly visible coloration to assist naval recovery forces following splashdown in the Pacific Ocean.¹⁸

Space Launch System Architecture and Propulsion Dynamics

The Artemis II mission relies on the Space Launch System Block 1, currently the most powerful operational super heavy-lift launch vehicle in the world.¹⁹ Standing approximately 98 meters tall and weighing over 2.6 million kilograms at liftoff, the vehicle is designed to generate 39 meganewtons of thrust, enabling it to deliver a 95,000-kilogram payload to low Earth orbit or a 27,000-kilogram payload directly into a trans-lunar injection trajectory.¹⁹

The architecture of the Block 1 variant is highly dependent on legacy components derived from the Space Shuttle program, updated with modern avionics and manufacturing techniques.¹⁹ The core stage is powered by four RS-25 liquid-propellant engines, which are fed by massive internal tanks containing liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen.²¹ These main engines are augmented during the first two minutes of flight by twin five-segment solid rocket boosters, which provide the vast majority of the thrust required to escape the dense lower atmosphere.²¹

Following the depletion and jettison of the solid rocket boosters and the eventual shutdown of the core stage, the responsibility for inserting the Orion spacecraft into its precise orbital trajectories falls to the Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage.²²

The Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage

The Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage is a heavily modified iteration of the United Launch Alliance Delta IV Cryogenic Second Stage, adapted specifically for the unique demands of the Artemis program.²² Measuring 13.7 meters in length and 5.1 meters in diameter, the stage is built around a single Aerojet Rocketdyne RL10 engine.²² This highly efficient engine produces 24,750 pounds of vacuum thrust by combusting a cryogenic mixture of liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen.²²

Modifications from the commercial Delta IV heritage include enhanced attitude control thrusters, structural reinforcements to the liquid hydrogen tank, upgraded radiation-hardened avionics, and specialized liquid hydrogen vent and relief valves designed to support multiple engine restarts during the prolonged coast phases of the lunar transit.²³ The stage is also equipped with a secondary payload deployment system housed within the stage adapter, though its primary function remains the acceleration of the Orion spacecraft.²⁹

The Cryogenic Helium Pressurization Anomaly

The immediate catalyst for the delay of the Artemis II mission from its March 2026 launch window involves the pneumatic systems governing the Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage.⁷ In cryogenic liquid rocket stages, inert gases such as helium play an indispensable and highly critical operational role.¹¹ Helium possesses an exceptionally low boiling point, meaning it remains in a gaseous state even when exposed to the extreme sub-zero thermal environments of liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen.³³

Within the Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage architecture, high-pressure helium is utilized for two primary functions: line purging and tank pressurization.¹⁰ Prior to the introduction of cryogenic propellants, the plumbing lines and engine manifolds must be entirely purged of atmospheric gases and moisture.¹⁰ If atmospheric moisture were to remain in the plumbing system during the loading of liquid hydrogen, it would instantaneously freeze, creating solid mechanical blockages within the delicate valves and turbopumps of the RL10 engine. Following the purge sequence, helium is continually injected to pressurize the propellant tanks.¹⁰ As the engine consumes liquid propellants during powered flight, the volume of liquid in the tanks decreases. To prevent the ultra-thin metallic tanks from collapsing inward under their own structural weight due to the vacuum of space, and to ensure a continuous, positive pressure feed of liquid into the engine's turbomachinery, gaseous helium is injected into the ullage space—the empty volume above the liquid propellant.¹¹

The February 2026 Flow Interruption

In preparation for the March launch window, ground crews at the Kennedy Space Center conducted a series of comprehensive fueling tests known as Wet Dress Rehearsals.⁸ These rehearsals involve loading over 700,000 gallons of cryogenic propellants into the vehicle and executing the launch countdown to the final seconds, validating the synchronization of ground and flight software.⁸ Throughout the initial rehearsal and a subsequent recycling procedure, the upper stage helium pressurization system performed nominally.¹⁰

However, during a routine operation to repressurize the pneumatic system overnight on February 20 to February 21, 2026, automated sensors indicated a sudden and complete interruption of helium flow from the ground support equipment through the launch vehicle's internal systems.⁷ The launch vehicle was immediately placed into a safe configuration by launch controllers, who utilized a ground-based Environmental Control System purge to maintain the necessary safety margins for the engines in lieu of the onboard helium supply.¹⁴

Diagnostic data gathered by propulsion engineers identified three highly probable loci for the pneumatic failure. The first potential fault was a physical blockage in the final filter assembly located on the umbilical connection between the ground support equipment and the flight vehicle; however, engineers assessed this as the least likely failure mode based on the specific telemetry pressure signatures observed.¹⁴ The second potential fault was a mechanical seating failure within the Quick Disconnect Umbilical Interface, the complex mechanical bridge where the ground lines detach from the rocket during the moment of liftoff.¹⁴ The third, and most probable, fault was a failure of a one-way check valve located deep inside the stage's internal plumbing.¹⁴ Check valves are designed to allow high-pressure helium to flow into the tanks while physically preventing any backflow of cryogenic fluids.³¹ This specific failure signature is highly consistent with a similar hardware anomaly experienced during the uncrewed Artemis I mission in 2022, where a faulty upper stage helium check valve necessitated extensive and prolonged troubleshooting prior to launch.¹¹

Launch Pad Infrastructure and Rollback Logistics

Accessing and remediating a pneumatic fault deep within the Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage requires specialized infrastructure that is not readily available at the launch pad.¹⁰ While minor external repairs and software patches can occasionally be conducted while the rocket stands at Launch Complex 39B, the physical location of the internal check valves and the complex umbilical interfaces requires comprehensive scaffolding, environmental protection, and heavy lifting cranes.¹¹

The temporary access platforms installed at the launch pad are subject to strict, wind-driven operational constraints.¹² With high winds forecasted for the Florida coast in the latter half of February, ground crews could not safely deploy the necessary external platforms, nor could they safely expose the sensitive internal components of the propulsion stage to the humid, salt-laden coastal environment.¹² Furthermore, any invasive plumbing repair on a stage that has recently been exposed to liquid hydrogen carries extreme safety protocols to prevent explosive hazards.³⁸

Consequently, the administration authorized a complete rollback of the 322-foot integrated Space Launch System and Orion stack.¹⁰ The vehicle must be moved back to the Vehicle Assembly Building, an enormous facility that provides a controlled, enclosed environment with permanent, 360-degree access platforms necessary for invasive hardware replacement.¹⁰ The logistical footprint of destacking external umbilicals, configuring the massive Crawler-Transporter, executing the slow four-mile transit from the pad to the building, and re-establishing ground connections inside the high bay rendered any attempt to meet the brief March launch window physically impossible.¹⁰

Orbital Mechanics and Launch Window Constraints

The delay from the targeted March launch to April 2026 highlights the incredibly stringent celestial and physical constraints governing lunar launch windows. Unlike missions to the International Space Station, which feature near-daily launch opportunities due to the station's predictable low Earth orbit, missions to the Moon are dictated by a complex, multi-variable interplay of orbital mechanics, solar illumination, and atmospheric entry requirements.⁴⁰

The Artemis II launch periods are calculated by identifying the intersection of several independent physical and geometric constraints. Due to the continuous, unaligned variations in the Moon's elliptical orbit around the Earth, the inclination of that orbit relative to the Earth's equator, and the rotation of the Earth itself, all of these constraints align for only a few days each month.¹⁰

Launch Window Constraint	Physical Requirement	Mission Impact if Violated
Trans-Lunar Injection Alignment	Geometric intersection of the Earth departure asymptote with the precise future location of the Moon.	Failure to reach the lunar sphere of influence; excessive propellant consumption required for mid-course corrections.
Solar Array Illumination	The trajectory must ensure a maximum of 90 minutes of continuous eclipse by celestial bodies.	Total depletion of spacecraft electrical batteries; catastrophic thermal freezing of vital life support systems.
Atmospheric Entry Angle	Precise intersection with Earth's upper atmosphere to generate aerodynamic lift for the skip entry.	Skip entry failure resulting in excessive g-loads on the crew or fatal thermal failure of the ablative heat shield.
Recovery Daylight	The targeted splashdown in the Pacific Ocean must occur during local daylight hours.	Impaired visual tracking of the descending capsule; increased operational risk during naval recovery.

The most critical of these constraints is the Trans-Lunar Injection alignment. The Space Launch System must place the Orion spacecraft into a precise position in orbit that aligns geometrically with the Moon's projected location.⁴⁰ The injection engine burn must occur at a specific orbital node to ensure the spacecraft accurately intercepts the Moon's gravitational sphere of influence days later, rather than flying off into deep space.⁴⁰

Equally vital are the solar illumination constraints. The Orion spacecraft relies entirely on its four deployable solar array wings for electrical power generation and the regulation of the Active Thermal Control System.⁴⁰ The trajectory calculated for any given launch day must guarantee that the spacecraft is not eclipsed by the shadow of the Earth or the Moon for more than ninety consecutive minutes.⁴⁰ Extended periods of darkness would drain the onboard battery reserves beyond recoverable limits and plunge the spacecraft's external fluid loops into thermal non-compliance, leading to frozen pipes and system death.

With the March window (running from March 6 through March 11) eliminated due to the rollback and required repairs in the Vehicle Assembly Building, orbital mechanics dictate that the next viable alignment cluster opens on April 1, with subsequent daily opportunities stretching from April 3 to April 6, and a final, isolated opportunity at the end of the month on April 30.¹²

The Hybrid Triple Trajectory and Trans-Lunar Injection

Once launched from the Kennedy Space Center, Artemis II will follow a unique ten-day flight profile formally known as a Hybrid Triple Trajectory.⁴³ This architecture is distinctly different from the flight profiles utilized during the Apollo missions, which transitioned rapidly from a low Earth parking orbit directly into a trans-lunar injection.²⁴ The Artemis II profile is highly conservative, incorporating extended checkout periods in Earth orbit to validate entirely new life support systems before committing the crew to the point of no return in deep space.²⁶

Phase 1: Orbital Insertion and Apogee Raise

Following liftoff, the solid rocket boosters, the aerodynamic fairings, and the launch abort system are systematically jettisoned.²⁴ The core stage main engines will shut down, and the massive empty tank will separate, leaving the Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage to insert the Orion spacecraft into a highly elliptical low Earth orbit.²⁴ This initial orbit features an altitude ranging from approximately 185 kilometers at its lowest point (perigee) to 2253 kilometers at its highest point (apogee).²⁶ This initial orbit lasts roughly ninety minutes, allowing the crew to unstrap from their seats and conduct preliminary evaluations of the cabin pressure and basic avionics.²⁶

Subsequently, the Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage will ignite its RL10 engine for a brief perigee raise maneuver, followed shortly by a massive apogee raise burn.²⁴ This major propulsive maneuver dramatically extends the orbit's high point, pushing the spacecraft into a high Earth orbit that stretches approximately 74,000 kilometers away from the planet.²⁶ To provide perspective, this is significantly farther than the orbits of geostationary communications satellites.²⁶

The spacecraft will remain in this highly elliptical orbit for an extended period of nearly twenty-four hours.²⁶ This deliberate pause allows the crew and ground controllers in Houston to thoroughly stress-test the Environmental Control and Life Support Systems.²⁶ Because the spacecraft is still gravitationally bound to a relatively low-energy Earth orbit, a rapid return to the surface is achievable within hours should a critical system failure occur, a safety net that disappears once the vehicle heads for the Moon.⁴³

Phase 2: Trans-Lunar Injection and Free-Return

Assuming all systems report nominal telemetry during the twenty-four-hour checkout, the Orion capsule will physically separate from the Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage.²⁴ Using its own European Service Module main engine, Orion will execute the final Trans-Lunar Injection burn.²⁴ This maneuver adds enough kinetic energy to break the spacecraft out of its elliptical Earth orbit and embark on a four-day outbound transit to the Moon.⁶

The trajectory chosen for the circumlunar flight is a specialized "free-return" path.⁴ Rather than firing its engines to enter a stable lunar orbit, Orion will utilize the Moon's immense gravitational pull to bend its trajectory in a massive figure-eight pattern.⁴⁶ The spacecraft will pass approximately 10,300 kilometers (6,400 miles) beyond the far side of the Moon, traveling further from Earth than any human has ever ventured.⁴ The gravitational interaction will seamlessly slingshot the spacecraft back toward Earth.²⁶ The primary safety advantage of the free-return trajectory is that it requires no major propulsive maneuvers to guarantee a return home; once the initial injection burn is completed, orbital mechanics ensure the spacecraft will naturally intersect Earth's atmosphere regardless of subsequent main engine functionality.²⁶ Small reaction control thrusters are sufficient to make minor course corrections along the way.⁴⁵

Proximity Operations and Manual Flight Control Laws

A major flight test objective unique to Artemis II is the validation of Orion's manual flight control systems. While the vast majority of the mission will be flown autonomously via pre-programmed flight control algorithms governed by the onboard computers, the crew must verify their ability to manually command the vehicle.⁴⁹ This capability is critical for future missions, such as Artemis III and Artemis IV, which will require complex manual rendezvous and docking operations with the lunar Gateway space station and commercial Human Landing Systems in lunar orbit.⁶

Following the apogee raise burn and the physical separation of Orion from the Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage, the depleted upper stage will coast nearby in orbit.³⁰ Ground crews from United Launch Alliance have affixed a highly reflective, two-dimensional rendezvous target to the exterior of the stage specifically for this test.⁵¹ During a seventy-minute demonstration window occurring roughly three hours into the mission, the astronauts will take manual control of the Orion capsule.³⁰ After retreating to a safe distance of approximately three hundred feet, the crew will utilize the spacecraft's reaction control system thrusters to arrest their relative motion, orient the spacecraft to face the target, and execute a series of precise approaches and retreats.⁵⁰

The manual flight control system relies on an advanced glass cockpit interface, abandoning the heavy paper manuals and thousands of physical switches utilized during the Space Shuttle era in favor of software-driven digital displays and specialized hand controllers.¹⁸ The pilot and commander are equipped with two distinct control inputs to maneuver the vehicle in the vacuum of space.

The Rotational Hand Controller, operated with the right hand, dictates the spacecraft's attitude in three-dimensional space.⁴⁹ By twisting, tilting, or pushing the controller, the pilot commands the onboard computer to fire specific combinations of maneuvering thrusters to alter the pitch (moving the nose up or down), yaw (moving the nose left or right), and roll (rotating the capsule along its longitudinal axis).⁴⁹ Conversely, the Translational Hand Controller, operated with the left hand, commands linear movement without altering the spacecraft's rotational attitude.⁴⁹ Manipulating this controller translates the entire vehicle directly forward, backward, up, down, left, or right along its current vector.⁵³ A third device, known as the Cursor Control Device, allows the crew to interact with the digital display screens to pull up deep telemetry if the primary controls experience a fault.⁴⁹

By mapping the visual inputs from the target through the electronic displays, the crew will assess the "handling qualities" of the spacecraft.⁴⁹ This involves quantifying the latency between a hand controller input and the physical response of the vehicle, and noting any uncommanded cross-coupling between rotational and translational axes, data that cannot be perfectly simulated in Earth-based laboratories.⁵⁰

Environmental Control and Life Support Systems (ECLSS)

Because Artemis II represents the inaugural crewed flight of the Orion spacecraft, validating the Environmental Control and Life Support Systems is of paramount importance.³ This highly complex network of machinery is responsible for atmospheric revitalization, trace contaminant monitoring, metabolic waste management, and thermal regulation within the sealed crew module.¹⁸

In the hermetically sealed environment of a spacecraft, human metabolic processes continuously convert breathable oxygen into toxic carbon dioxide, while exuding water vapor through respiration and perspiration.⁵⁶ If left unmitigated, carbon dioxide concentrations would rapidly rise to lethal levels, impairing cognitive function and eventually causing asphyxiation, while excessive moisture would condense on electrical avionics, precipitating catastrophic short circuits.⁵⁶

Atmospheric Revitalization via the CAMRAS Swing-Bed

To address atmospheric contamination, Orion utilizes an advanced system known as the Carbon dioxide And Moisture Removal Amine Swing-bed (CAMRAS).⁶⁰ Older spacecraft architectures, including the Apollo capsules and the early Space Shuttle, relied heavily on consumable lithium hydroxide canisters to absorb carbon dioxide through an irreversible chemical reaction, alongside separate condensing heat exchangers to spin moisture out of the air.⁵⁹ These legacy systems added significant mass and volume penalties to the spacecraft, as spare canisters had to be carried for every day of the mission.⁵⁹ The CAMRAS unit represents a highly efficient, regenerable alternative that operates indefinitely without consumable filters.⁵⁹

The CAMRAS utilizes layers of a solid amine-based chemical sorbent, specifically formulated as SA9T, packaged within a highly porous, thermally conductive metal foam.⁵⁹ The system is built around a dual-bed architecture. While cabin air is actively blown through the first bed by an electric fan, the amine chemicals naturally bind to and trap passing carbon dioxide and water molecules, scrubbing the air clean.⁶² This chemical adsorption process is intrinsically exothermic, meaning it generates a substantial amount of heat.⁵⁹

Simultaneously, the second bed is physically sealed off from the cabin interior and exposed directly to the vacuum of deep space through an external vent.⁶² The vacuum drastically lowers the local pressure within the bed. By physically and thermally linking the two beds together, the heat generated by the active, adsorbing bed is conducted directly into the vacuum-exposed bed.⁵⁹ The combination of conductive heat and extreme low pressure breaks the chemical bonds between the amine sorbent and the trapped molecules, effectively boiling the carbon dioxide and moisture directly out into space.⁶¹

A highly reliable linear multi-ball valve rotates back and forth at precise minute-intervals, continuously swapping the roles of the two beds.⁶² This alternating cycle facilitates uninterrupted atmospheric scrubbing without the need for heavy consumable filters or independent electrical heating and cooling loops.⁵⁹ In order to simulate launch pad operations where a separate vacuum source is impractical before liftoff, a pressurized gas purge can be used to sweep the beds clean until the vehicle reaches space.⁶³

ECLSS Component	Primary Function	Operational Mechanism
CAMRAS Swing-Bed	Carbon dioxide and moisture removal	Alternating amine adsorption and vacuum desorption
Oxygen Generation	Replenish breathable atmosphere	High-pressure gas tanks and potential water electrolysis
Trace Contaminant Control	Remove toxic chemical off-gassing	Specialized chemical sorbent filters
Active Thermal Control	Reject metabolic and electrical heat	Closed-loop fluid pumping to external radiators

Active Thermal Control System (ATCS)

The electrical avionics, environmental scrubbers, and the crew members themselves generate a massive amount of thermal energy. In the vacuum of space, heat cannot dissipate through convection as it does on Earth; it must be actively collected and radiated away.⁵⁷ Without a mechanism to reject this heat into space, the interior of the Orion capsule would rapidly exceed survivable temperatures.⁶⁶

The Active Thermal Control System utilizes a closed-loop fluid architecture to transport heat from the interior of the Crew Module to the exterior of the European Service Module.⁶⁷ The system circulates a specialized synthetic heat-transfer fluid, identified as HFE-7200, through a series of internal cold plates.⁶⁸ Electronic boxes, flight computers, and high-draw avionics systems are physically mounted directly to these cold plates, allowing their waste heat to conduct into the flowing fluid.⁶⁷

The warmed fluid is then pumped through a massive Interface Heat Exchanger, which serves as the primary thermal bridge between the pressurized Crew Module and the unpressurized European Service Module.⁶⁷ Once the fluid crosses into the Service Module, it flows through a series of large, body-mounted panels known as radiators.⁶⁷ Because the deep space environment acts as a near-infinite thermodynamic heat sink, the thermal energy in the fluid radiates away from the spacecraft as infrared energy.⁶⁵ The cooled fluid is then pumped back into the cabin to absorb more heat, maintaining a strict thermal equilibrium throughout the highly dynamic phases of the mission.⁵⁷

Aerothermodynamics, Avcoat Permeability, and Skip Entry

Upon completion of the lunar flyby, the Orion spacecraft will separate from the European Service Module and return to Earth at immense velocities, approaching forty thousand kilometers per hour, or roughly Mach 32.²⁴ At these extreme speeds, the friction and violent compression of the Earth's atmosphere generate a bow shock wave and a plasma wake with temperatures peaking near 2760 degrees Celsius (5000 degrees Fahrenheit)—substantially hotter than the reentry parameters experienced by spacecraft returning from low Earth orbit.⁷⁰ The structural integrity of the spacecraft's heat shield is the single most critical factor in crew survival during this phase.

Artemis I Avcoat Anomalies and Remediation

The Orion heat shield is constructed from an ablative material known as Avcoat, an epoxy-novolac resin designed to intentionally burn away, carrying extreme thermal energy away from the underlying titanium and composite spacecraft structure.⁷¹ During the uncrewed Artemis I mission, post-flight inspections revealed that the heat shield experienced an unexpected and highly dangerous phenomenon known as spallation—the sudden and erratic shedding of solid chunks of the charred outer layer.⁷¹

Extensive root-cause analysis involving over one hundred ground tests and arc-jet facility simulations determined that the physical structure of the Avcoat in specific localized areas lacked necessary "permeability".⁷¹ As the Avcoat material absorbed heat during reentry, the chemical components underwent pyrolysis, breaking down and generating outgassing vapors as part of the expected ablation process.⁷¹ Ideally, these gases should vent outward through microscopic pores in the forming char layer.⁷¹ However, because the uncrewed flight experienced slightly different heating rates than simulated in ground tests, a dense, impermeable char layer formed too quickly.⁷¹ The trapped internal gases expanded rapidly under the extreme heat, building tremendous internal pressure until the mechanical strength of the Avcoat was exceeded, causing the material to crack violently and break away in large chunks.⁷¹

To rectify this potential failure mode for the crewed Artemis II mission, engineers at the Michoud Assembly Facility in New Orleans have fundamentally altered the manufacturing process of the Avcoat blocks.⁷¹ The new iteration of the heat shield utilizes highly uniform, pre-fabricated blocks with heavily controlled porosity.⁷¹ This increased permeability ensures that ablative gases can freely vent to the vacuum of the plasma wake, preventing pressure buildup and guaranteeing a smooth, predictable recession of the char layer to protect the crew.⁷¹

The Skip Entry Flight Profile

To further manage the extreme thermal and aerodynamic stresses of lunar return velocities, Artemis II will execute a specialized "skip entry" maneuver—a technique that was successfully validated during the Artemis I flight.⁶⁹

Rather than plunging directly through the atmosphere in a single, continuous, ballistic descent, Orion will utilize its offset center of gravity, which generates a small but crucial amount of aerodynamic lift, to literally bounce off the upper layers of the atmosphere.⁷⁰ The maneuver is executed in several phases: First, the spacecraft enters the upper atmosphere, using aerodynamic drag to bleed off a massive amount of kinetic energy, slowing the vehicle significantly while experiencing peak heating.⁷⁰ Second, by manipulating the spacecraft's roll angle using reaction control thrusters, the flight computer directs the aerodynamic lift vector upward, causing the capsule to pitch up and temporarily exit the dense atmosphere, returning briefly to the vacuum of space.⁷⁰ Third, during this brief exo-atmospheric phase, known as the skip dwell, the spacecraft undergoes a rapid cooling period, allowing immense heat accumulated in the Avcoat shield to radiate away.⁷⁰ Finally, the spacecraft falls back into the atmosphere at a much slower velocity for a final, controlled descent, deploying drogue and main parachutes to facilitate a gentle splashdown.⁷¹

This complex maneuver effectively divides the immense heat and physical force of reentry into two distinct events. This not only prevents the heat shield from reaching its absolute thermal limits, but it also drastically reduces the sustained g-forces experienced by the crew, ensuring their physiological safety.⁶⁹ Furthermore, the skip entry vastly increases the cross-range capability of the spacecraft, allowing it to accurately target the Pacific Ocean recovery zone from a distance of up to 8800 kilometers (5500 miles) away, enabling pinpoint precision for the waiting naval recovery vessels.⁶⁹

Deep Space Radiation Shielding and Biological Dosimetry

Beyond the protective magnetic bubble of the Earth's magnetosphere, the Artemis II crew will be exposed to an intense radiation environment dominated by continuous Galactic Cosmic Rays and unpredictable Solar Energetic Particles.¹ Furthermore, the Hybrid Triple Trajectory requires the spacecraft to pass through the Van Allen belts—two distinct zones of trapped, highly energetic charged particles encircling the Earth—a total of three times (twice during the initial orbital raise maneuvers, and once upon final return).⁴³

Because traditional heavy lead shielding is prohibitively massive for any launch vehicle to lift into orbit, the Orion spacecraft utilizes a multi-functional mass shielding strategy. The primary defense is the strategic arrangement of the spacecraft's existing physical mass.⁷⁸ The dense aluminum structures, internal electronic components, and heavy life support machinery are purposefully clustered around the deepest interior sections of the capsule, creating a localized safe haven for the crew.⁷⁸

However, when highly energetic cosmic rays impact dense metals like aluminum, they often shatter the atomic nuclei of the metal, creating a shower of secondary radiation fragments which can sometimes be more biologically damaging than the original particle.⁷⁸ To mitigate this secondary fragmentation effect, engineers prioritize low-atomic-number materials on the innermost walls of the cabin.⁷⁸ Plastics, polyethylene garments, and onboard liquid water supplies are highly effective at slowing and capturing secondary particles without inducing further fragmentation.⁷⁸

To monitor physiological impacts in real-time and collect data for future missions, the crew will continuously wear Crew Active Dosimeters.⁷⁶ The cabin also features an array of sensors known as the Hybrid Electronic Radiation Assessors to map the internal radiation field.⁷⁶ In a major leap for biological monitoring, Artemis II will deploy cutting-edge "organ-on-a-chip" technology outside of low Earth orbit for the very first time.⁷⁹ These miniature biological devices contain living cells cultured from the crew's own preflight blood donations, acting as cellular "avatars".⁴⁶ These chips will monitor precisely how human bone marrow and deep tissues react to the deep space radiation environment and microgravity, directly informing shielding designs for prolonged future missions to Mars.⁴⁶

Programmatic Implications for the Artemis Campaign

The transition of the Artemis II launch from March to early April 2026 carries cascading programmatic implications for the subsequent milestones of the broader Artemis campaign.⁹

Artemis III, the highly anticipated mission tasked with returning humans to the lunar surface near the South Pole using a commercial Human Landing System, is officially targeted for September 2026.⁵⁵ This mission architecture relies absolutely on the successful validation of the Orion life support and rendezvous systems during Artemis II. The slip of Artemis II into the second quarter of 2026 significantly compresses the turnaround time required for engineers to analyze the massive volume of flight telemetry, inspect the physical recovery of the new Avcoat heat shield, and implement any necessary hardware or software revisions for the Artemis III Orion capsule.⁵⁵ Given the meticulous, risk-averse nature of post-flight aerospace data analysis, an April 2026 execution of Artemis II places immense pressure on maintaining the late 2026 timeline for Artemis III.⁵⁵

Furthermore, Artemis II and Artemis III represent the final flights of the Space Launch System Block 1 configuration and the Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage.²¹ Beginning with Artemis IV, the program will transition to the vastly upgraded Block 1B launch architecture.¹⁹

Launch Architecture	Space Launch System Block 1	Space Launch System Block 1B
Targeted Missions	Artemis I, II, and III	Artemis IV and beyond
Upper Stage Design	Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage	Exploration Upper Stage
Upper Stage Propulsion	Single RL10 Engine	Four RL10 Engines
Payload Fairing	Small secondary cubesat adapters	Universal Stage Adapter
Translunar Mass Capacity	Approximately 27,000 kilograms	Approximately 42,000 kilograms

The Block 1B configuration utilizes a new, highly powerful Exploration Upper Stage equipped with four RL10 engines.²⁰ This enhancement drastically increases the mass that can be thrown to the Moon, allowing the rocket to co-manifest the Orion crew capsule alongside heavy infrastructure modules, such as habitation components for the Gateway lunar space station, in a single launch.²⁰ Therefore, the current technical hurdles regarding the Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage helium check valves, while critical for the safe execution of Artemis II, are isolated to a legacy upper stage design that will be entirely replaced in the latter half of the decade.²¹

Conclusion

The Artemis II mission represents a highly complex integration of fluid dynamics, orbital mechanics, thermodynamics, and material science. The recent programmatic delay to April 2026, driven by a helium flow interruption within the Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage, underscores the profound difficulties inherent in managing volatile cryogenic systems. The decision to execute a complete rollback to the Vehicle Assembly Building rather than attempt rushed pad-side repairs reflects a rigorous adherence to safety margins over schedule adherence.

As the launch vehicle is prepared for the April orbital alignment, the mission stands poised to validate the foundational systems of deep space exploration. From the molecular scrubbing of carbon dioxide within the amine swing-beds to the dynamic thermal rejection of the active cooling loops, and the aerodynamic precision of the skip entry maneuver, every subsystem must operate flawlessly. The data generated during this ten-day circumlunar transit will not only clear the path for the Artemis III lunar landing but will establish the technical baselines necessary for the eventual human expansion into the wider solar system.

Works cited

1. NASA's Artemis 2 mission: Everything you need to know - Space, accessed February 22, 2026, https://www.space.com/artemis-2-humans-moon-orbit

2. Meet the 4 astronauts flying on NASA's Artemis 2 moon mission - Space, accessed February 22, 2026, https://www.space.com/artemis-2-moon-mission-astronauts-meet-the-crew

3. What is Artemis II? | National Air and Space Museum, accessed February 22, 2026, https://airandspace.si.edu/stories/editorial/what-artemis-ii

4. Artemis II - Wikipedia, accessed February 22, 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis_II

5. Artemis II: NASA's First Crewed Lunar Flyby in 50 Years, accessed February 22, 2026, https://www.nasa.gov/mission/artemis-ii/

6. ESA - Artemis II - European Space Agency, accessed February 22, 2026, https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Human_and_Robotic_Exploration/Orion/Artemis_II

7. Artemis II launch window delayed again due to helium-flow issue with moon rocket, accessed February 22, 2026, https://www.kare11.com/article/news/nation-world/artemis-launch-window-date-update-helium-flow-issue-nasa/507-db3b2d74-60ec-43b2-b977-3131d663e9c8

8. NASA sets date to send astronauts around moon for first time in 50 years, accessed February 22, 2026, https://www.trtworld.com/article/8752413b935f

9. NASA's Artemis Moon Missions: all you need to know - Royal Museums Greenwich, accessed February 22, 2026, https://www.rmg.co.uk/stories/space-astronomy/nasa-moon-mission-artemis-program-launch-date

10. NASA’s Artemis 2 rocket hit by new problem expected to bump moonshot into early April, accessed February 22, 2026, https://spaceflightnow.com/2026/02/21/nasas-artemis-2-rocket-hit-by-new-problem-expected-to-bump-moonshot-into-early-april/

11. Moon mission delayed again as NASA faces fresh Artemis II technical trouble, accessed February 22, 2026, https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/science/moon-mission-delayed-again-as-nasa-faces-fresh-artemis-ii-technical-trouble/articleshow/128669308.cms

12. NASA's Artemis 2 moon rocket has a new problem. 'This will almost assuredly impact the March launch window.' | Space, accessed February 22, 2026, https://www.space.com/space-exploration/artemis/problem-pops-up-with-artemis-2-moon-rocket-this-will-almost-assuredly-impact-the-march-launch-window

13. NASA: Artemis II launch could be delayed over new issue | FOX 10 Phoenix, accessed February 22, 2026, https://www.fox10phoenix.com/news/nasa-troubleshooting-issue-could-push-artemis-ii-launch-officials-say

14. Possible SLS rollback & impact to the launch date due to helium flow issue in the ICPS., accessed February 22, 2026, https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/1raunrr/possible_sls_rollback_impact_to_the_launch_date/

15. Our Artemis Crew - NASA, accessed February 22, 2026, https://www.nasa.gov/feature/our-artemis-crew/

16. The Artemis II mission | Canadian Space Agency, accessed February 22, 2026, https://www.asc-csa.gc.ca/eng/missions/artemis-ii/mission.asp

17. Meet the Crew of Artemis II | National Air and Space Museum, accessed February 22, 2026, https://airandspace.si.edu/stories/editorial/meet-crew-artemis-ii

18. ORION Reference Guide | NASA, accessed February 22, 2026, https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/orion-reference-guide-111022.pdf

19. Space Launch System - Wikipedia, accessed February 22, 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System

20. NASA's SLS Rocket: Block 1 vs. Block 1B Configuration, accessed February 22, 2026, https://www.nasa.gov/image-article/nasas-sls-rocket-block-1-vs-block-1b-configuration/

21. SLS (Space Launch System) Block 1B - NASA, accessed February 22, 2026, https://www.nasa.gov/reference/sls-space-launch-system-block-1b/

22. SLS Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage Fact Sheet - NASA, accessed February 22, 2026, https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/sls-4980-sls-icps-fact-sheet-nov2024-508.pdf?emrc=9d4e7d

23. Artemis II Wet Dress Rehearsal, critical milestone to launch - Attempt 1 scrubbed, accessed February 22, 2026, https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2026/02/artemis-ii-wdr-critical-milestone-launch/

24. How Artemis 2 will fly around the Moon - Astronomy Magazine, accessed February 22, 2026, https://www.astronomy.com/space-exploration/how-artemis-2-will-fly-around-the-moon/

25. ICPS-1: Stage stacked atop first SLS rocket - United Launch Alliance, accessed February 22, 2026, https://blog.ulalaunch.com/blog/icps-1-stage-stacked-atop-first-sls-rocket

26. In-flight milestones | Canadian Space Agency, accessed February 22, 2026, https://www.asc-csa.gc.ca/eng/missions/artemis-ii/in-flight-milestones.asp

27. SLS (Space Launch System) Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage - NASA, accessed February 22, 2026, https://www.nasa.gov/reference/icps/

28. Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage (ICPS) - United Launch Alliance, accessed February 22, 2026, https://www.ulalaunch.com/interim-cryogenic-propulsion-stage-(icps)

29. Artemis II Reference Guide - NASA, accessed February 22, 2026, https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/a2-reference-guide-012825.pdf

30. SPACE LAUNCH SYSTEM - REFERENCE GUIDE for ARTEMIS II - NASA, accessed February 22, 2026, https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/sls-5558-artemis-ii-sls-reference-guide.pdf

31. Citing valve problem, NASA will load only the SLS core stage in next countdown test, accessed February 22, 2026, https://spaceflightnow.com/2022/04/09/citing-valve-problem-nasa-will-load-only-the-sls-core-stage-in-next-countdown-test/

32. NASA Troubleshooting Artemis II Rocket Upper Stage Issue, Preparing to Roll Back, accessed February 22, 2026, https://www.nasa.gov/blogs/missions/2026/02/21/nasa-troubleshooting-artemis-ii-rocket-upper-stage-issue-preparing-to-roll-back/

33. design and development of pressure and repressurization purge system for reusable space shuttle multilayer, accessed February 22, 2026, https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19720007239/downloads/19720007239.pdf

34. NASA Delays Artemis II Launch Mission Due To Helium System Issue - Benzinga, accessed February 22, 2026, https://www.benzinga.com/news/space/26/02/50770305/nasa-delays-artemis-ii-launch-mission-due-to-helium-system-issue

35. NASA Conducts Artemis II Fuel Test, Eyes March for Launch Opportunity, accessed February 22, 2026, https://www.nasa.gov/blogs/missions/2026/02/03/nasa-conducts-artemis-ii-fuel-test-eyes-march-for-launch-opportunity/

36. NASA targets February 19 for second Artemis II rehearsal fueling, accessed February 22, 2026, https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/science/nasa-targets-february-19-for-second-artemis-ii-rehearsal-fueling/articleshow/128455065.cms

37. Artemis II Delayed Due to Upper Stage Problem - SpacePolicyOnline.com, accessed February 22, 2026, https://spacepolicyonline.com/news/artemis-ii-likely-delayed-due-to-upper-stage-problem/

38. SLS Rolls Back to VAB for Repairs - AmericaSpace, accessed February 22, 2026, https://www.americaspace.com/2022/04/26/sls-rolls-back-to-vab-for-repairs/

39. NASA, Air Liquide continue working on Artemis 1 WDR issues - NASASpaceFlight.com, accessed February 22, 2026, https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2022/05/nasa-air-liquide-artemis-1-wdr/

40. Artemis II launch opportunities announced | Canadian Space Agency, accessed February 22, 2026, https://www.asc-csa.gc.ca/eng/news/articles/2026/2026-01-09-artemis-ii-launch-opportunities-announced.asp

41. Final Steps Underway for NASA's First Crewed Artemis Moon Mission, accessed February 22, 2026, https://www.nasa.gov/missions/artemis/artemis-2/final-steps-underway-for-nasas-first-crewed-artemis-moon-mission/

42. Why are the launch windows for NASA's Artemis 2 moon mission so short? | Space, accessed February 22, 2026, https://www.space.com/space-exploration/artemis/why-are-the-launch-windows-for-nasas-artemis-2-moon-mission-so-short

43. Artemis‐2 Full Launch Window Trajectory Analysis and Projected Exposures at Radiation Hardware Locations on Ar, accessed February 22, 2026, https://wrmiss.org/workshops/twentyfourth/Lee.pdf

44. Artemis 2 mission timeline: An itinerary for the historic 10-day flight | Mashable, accessed February 22, 2026, https://mashable.com/article/artemis-2-mission-timeline-itinerary

45. No guarantees: Inside the biggest risks facing NASA's Artemis 2 crew | Mashable, accessed February 22, 2026, https://mashable.com/article/artemis-2-crew-biggest-risks

46. Artemis II Astronauts Enter Quarantine As NASA Eyes March 6 For The Moon Mission, accessed February 22, 2026, https://www.etvbharat.com/en/technology/artemis-ii-astronauts-enter-quarantine-as-nasa-eyes-march-6-for-the-moon-mission-enn26022102762

47. Artemis II Flight Path Animations - NASA Scientific Visualization Studio, accessed February 22, 2026, https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/20412/

48. Nasa may roll back Artemis II rocket launch after helium flow discovery, accessed February 22, 2026, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/feb/21/nasa-artemis-ii-rocket-launch

49. How to Fly NASA's Orion Spacecraft, accessed February 22, 2026, https://www.nasa.gov/missions/artemis/orion/how-to-fly-nasas-orion-spacecraft/

50. Key Test Drive of Orion on NASA's Artemis II to Aid Future Missions, accessed February 22, 2026, https://www.nasa.gov/humans-in-space/key-test-drive-of-orion-on-nasas-artemis-ii-to-aid-future-missions/

51. ICPS-2: Rendezvous target guides Artemis II Orion demonstrations - United Launch Alliance, accessed February 22, 2026, https://blog.ulalaunch.com/blog/icps-2-orion-will-observe-upper-stage-after-launch

52. Investigation of Reaction Control System Design on Spacecraft Handling Qualities for Docking - Aerospace Research Central, accessed February 22, 2026, https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/pdfplus/10.2514/1.44688

53. Translational and Rotational Hand Controllers | Download Scientific Diagram - ResearchGate, accessed February 22, 2026, https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Translational-and-Rotational-Hand-Controllers_fig2_245433832

54. Artemis II astronauts show how to manually fly the Orion spacecraft - Universe Space Tech, accessed February 22, 2026, https://universemagazine.com/en/artemis-ii-astronauts-show-how-to-manually-fly-the-orion-spacecraft/

55. NASA Shares Progress Toward Early Artemis Moon Missions with Crew, accessed February 22, 2026, https://www.nasa.gov/news-release/nasa-shares-progress-toward-early-artemis-moon-missions-with-crew/

56. OCHMO-TB-002 Environmental Control & Life Support System (ECLSS): Human-Centered Approach - NASA, accessed February 22, 2026, https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/eclss-technical-brief-ochmo.pdf

57. Crewed Missions | Collins Aerospace - RTX, accessed February 22, 2026, https://www.rtx.com/collinsaerospace/what-we-do/industries/space/crewed-missions

58. NASA System Maturation Teams: ECLSS & Environmental Monitoring - National Academies, accessed February 22, 2026, https://sites.nationalacademies.org/cs/groups/ssbsite/documents/webpage/ssb_174760.pdf

59. Testing of an Amine-Based Pressure-Swing System for Carbon Dioxide and Humidity Control - NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS), accessed February 22, 2026, https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20070020003/downloads/20070020003.pdf

60. Reduced Pressure Cabin Testing of the Orion Atmosphere Revitalization Technology - NASA Technical Reports Server, accessed February 22, 2026, https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20130011191/downloads/20130011191.pdf

61. CAMRAS: NASA's CO2 and Moisture Removal System Ready for ..., accessed February 22, 2026, https://www.spacesafetymagazine.com/aerospace-engineering/spacecraft-design/camras-nasas-co2-moisture-removal-system-ready-final-tests/

62. Amine Swingbed Payload Technology Demonstration - NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS), accessed February 22, 2026, https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20140008288

63. Orion ECLSS/Suit System - Ambient Pressure Integrated Suit Test - AIAA, accessed February 22, 2026, https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/pdfplus/10.2514/6.2012-3529

64. Further Testing of an Amine-Based Pressure-Swing System for Carbon Dioxide and Humidity Control - NASA Technical Reports Server, accessed February 22, 2026, https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20080012541/downloads/20080012541.pdf

65. Active Thermal Control System (ATCS) Overview - NASA, accessed February 22, 2026, https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/473486main_iss_atcs_overview.pdf

66. Orion Spacecraft Technical Overview | PDF - Scribd, accessed February 22, 2026, https://www.scribd.com/document/20872501/NASA-Orion-Spacecraft-Passive-Thermal-Control-Overview

67. Thermal Performance of Orion Active Thermal Control System With Seven-Panel Reduced-Curvature Radiator, accessed February 22, 2026, https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20100040420/downloads/20100040420.pdf

68. Development of the thermal control system of the European Service Module of the Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle, accessed February 22, 2026, https://ttu-ir.tdl.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/a51a54b9-9700-4724-a3ce-87f0e7f654d8/content

69. Orion Skip Maneuver | Lockheed Martin, accessed February 22, 2026, https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/news/features/2022/orion-skip-maneuver.html

70. NASA isn't fixing the heat shield on Artemis II - Ad Astra, accessed February 22, 2026, https://www.adastraspace.com/p/artemis-ii-orion-heat-shield-root-cause

71. NASA Identifies Cause of Artemis I Orion Heat Shield Char Loss, accessed February 22, 2026, https://www.nasa.gov/missions/artemis/nasa-identifies-cause-of-artemis-i-orion-heat-shield-char-loss/

72. GAO Discusses Orion Heat Shield Anomaly Root Cause, Artemis 3 Internal Schedule, accessed February 22, 2026, https://www.americaspace.com/2024/06/20/gao-discusses-orion-heat-shield-anomaly-root-cause-artemis-3-internal-schedule/

73. The Artemis 1 moon mission had a heat shield issue. Here's why NASA doesn't think it will happen again on Artemis 2 | Space, accessed February 22, 2026, https://www.space.com/space-exploration/artemis/the-artemis-1-moon-mission-had-a-heat-shield-issue-heres-why-nasa-doesnt-think-it-will-happen-again-on-artemis-2

74. NASA pinpoints cause of Orion heat shield char loss - Moon Daily, accessed February 22, 2026, https://www.moondaily.com/reports/NASA_pinpoints_cause_of_Orion_heat_shield_char_loss_999.html

75. Artemis I Heat Shield -Excessive Char Loss, NASA Performs Advanced RCA (Root Cause Analysis) - Cabin temp was maintained at 72 degrees F during re-entry : r/spaceporn - Reddit, accessed February 22, 2026, https://www.reddit.com/r/spaceporn/comments/1qlldvi/artemis_i_heat_shield_excessive_char_loss_nasa/

76. How NASA has planned to keep Artemis II astronauts safe throughout their Moon mission, accessed February 22, 2026, https://jatan.space/moon-monday-issue-260/

77. Real-time dose prediction for Artemis missions, accessed February 22, 2026, https://www.swsc-journal.org/articles/swsc/full_html/2025/01/swsc240037/swsc240037.html

78. The Van Allen belts: are they dangerous? - ESA's blogs, accessed February 22, 2026, https://blogs.esa.int/orion/2022/12/10/the-van-allen-belts-are-they-dangerous/

79. Artemis II Crew Both Subjects and Scientists in NASA Deep Space Research, accessed February 22, 2026, https://www.nasa.gov/general/artemis-ii-crew-both-subjects-and-scientists-in-nasa-deep-space-research/

80. NASA Accelerates Artemis 2 by Two Months - AmericaSpace, accessed February 22, 2026, https://www.americaspace.com/2025/03/22/nasa-accelerates-artemis-2-by-two-months/

81. Last SLS ICPS to follow last Delta IV, more Artemis II Orion pics - YouTube, accessed February 22, 2026, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKYkZJpmASA