That rather depends on the configuration at launch. The X-37B has never had an issue AFAIK as it cannot be struck by material shed from the rest of the stack. Mission 27 (Challenger +2) was nearly lost due to the ablative nose cone of an SRB causing extensive damage to the orbiter underside. For the grace of a metal plate covering an antenna, the orbiter could have been lost. Lifting body vehicles are fine as long as they are not compromised on the way to space.

Artemis re-entry caught from the ISS......

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....019010b81d.png

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....65167ecb9d.png

This predates Artemis but provides an interesting discussion of "the changing views of risk over time in NASA’s Apollo and Space Shuttle programs". - https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/...0190002249.pdf

Is that from ISS? Or a high-flying aircraft?

NineEighteen

" would hope that most astronauts are keenly aware of the risk and in some respects accept that they may die. I recall that Christa McAuliffe was asked about the risks before she set off on 51L and she stated that spaceflight was pretty routine at that point. It always struck me that, if she truly believed that and that Scobee, for example, hadn’t had a frank discussion with her, that it was a great shame that she was not aware before she died."

In at least one of the many Challenger documentaries that has done the rounds over the years Dick Scobee's widow claims that he had at least one conversation with McAuliffe and possibly her back up regarding the risks and emphasised that nothing about the shuttle was routine.

ISS. But, mea Culpa, that was the service module burning up, not Artemis itself.

You can see the it's the same window.

https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....44650489e6.png
​​​​​​​

Many thanks wiggy, I had not heard that but it’s good to know.

Thanks! I had not seen those images yet. The confusing thing (for me) is that the streak you see appears to be significantly higher than the viewpoint. I had not expected that relative view from the ISS.

WB-57 view of launch
 

I hope this isn't a repeat but I did a search:

The opening of the Orion Capsule in the water.

Some very nice footage.

Whoops...

Artemis 3 has been pushed to late 2027. Can NASA still land astronauts on the moon in 2028?

Artemis 3 has been pushed to late 2027. Can NASA still land astronauts on the moon in 2028? | Space

From the linked article;

"Starship and Blue Moon both run on cryogenically cooled propellants, which, without proper refrigeration, boil off as vented gas over time, and NASA is shaping the Artemis missions to last much longer than the handful of days spent on the lunar surface during the Apollo era. In addition, in order to make the journey to the moon's surface, then back to lunar orbit to transport crews back to Orion, both landers will require multiple refueling launches to top off their tanks while still in Earth orbit. And cryogenic fuel transfer between vehicles is yet another capability that no craft have ever tested in space."

It seems more than just prudent (or mere idle curiosity) to ask, what Technology Readiness Level(s) have been reached for each of the several steps required for accumulatimg the pertinent amounts of cryogenic propellants on orbit and then transferring those propellant to either the SpaceX or Blue Origin landers?

This was released by the Canadian Space Agency and Col. Jeremy Hanson in reponse to a letter sent to the Artemis II crew prior to launch by King Charles III