A MAN IN HIS WORKSHOP RECREATED THE HEAT SHIELD MATERIAL THAT CRACKED ON NASA'S ORION - AND REPRODUCED THE FAILURE
A YouTube maker mixed his own version of NASA's published Avcoat recipe, torched it with a skip-entry heating profile, and reproduced the same fracture NASA found on Artemis I's heat shield.
by polymatt
ScienceWorkshop
Built withESP32
- difficulty
- ●●●●●
- time
- a month-plus
- license
- license not specified
- repo
- repo 0 stars
●●●●● · a month-plus · license not specified · 0 stars · repo
WHAT YOU’LL NEED
Jump to section
COMPAREE VERDICT
This is not a weekend build — it is a materials experiment that needs an oxyacetylene torch, a milled copper sample holder, embedded thermocouples, a data logger and a lot of careful mixing. polymatt usually repairs old laptop shells and the like; this video, published 11 September 2026, recreates the heat shield problem NASA found on Artemis I. When Orion came back from the Moon, chunks of its ablative shield tore away. NASA traced the cause to the skip entry: the capsule dipped into the atmosphere, lifted back out, then came in again, so the heating was gentler and more drawn out than a continuous plunge. That left the char less permeable, so pyrolysis gases forming underneath had nowhere to escape, pressure built, and pieces fractured free. polymatt mixed NASA's published ingredients (epoxy, milled glass, phenolic microballoons), packed them into resin-printed honeycomb coupons with three thermocouples at different depths, then torched them in a copper holder with a continuous burn and a skip-entry profile (one minute on, one off, one on). The skip-entry coupon shattered; the longer continuous burn stayed intact. He is open about the limits: residual heat in the copper holder between runs, and no way to simulate pressure or a shock layer. The point worth understanding is that an ablative shield is supposed to be destroyed — it carries heat away by charring and shedding — so the question was never whether it degrades but how. The one thing most likely to go wrong if you try this: a mix with air pockets, or a rig that preheats the next sample. This is a phenomenal watch; it is not a practical build for most makers.
IN THE REPO
GOOD TO KNOW
- —This is a demonstration, not a project with files or a BOM.
- —The video shows the method and materials, but you would have to source thermocouples, filler constituents, a copper heat sink, and a torch rig yourself.
- —NASA's published materials list is the starting point; polymatt does not provide Gerbers, CAD, or a parts list.
- —The 24-minute video is the only documentation.
- —No licence; this is educational content, not open hardware.
- —The failure mechanism is NASA's own finding—polymatt reproduced it, he did not discover it.
Parts to buy
8 itemsFrom our check of the build. Exact quantities and part numbers are in the creator’s BOM.
Can I build this?
Build at your own risk. Projects involve tools, electronics and sometimes mains voltage — follow the creator’s safety notes.
Videos
Creator’s build video24:29
The 24-minute video is the only documentation. It has chapters (coupons, data logger, Avcoat mix, test rig, burns, results) but no BOM or written guide.
More builds like this
All projectsGallery
Start here
Navigation into the creator’s own docs — we don’t rewrite the guide, we route you to the source.
- 1.Watch the video (The 24-minute walkthrough is the only source. No written guide exists.)
- 2.Find NASA's published filler materials list(polymatt references it in the video; you will have to track down the Avcoat composition yourself.)
- 3.Embed thermocouples at several depths(polymatt cured three thermocouples into each coupon at 5, 12 and 20 mm from the back, logged with ESP32-S3 boards and MAX31856 amplifiers.)
- 4.Machine a copper heat sink to hold the samples(The copper structure imparts residual heat between runs—polymatt notes this as the main limitation.)
KNOWN ISSUES
- There is no BOM, no parts list, no CAD. You are reverse-engineering the method from a 24-minute video.
- The ingredients are ordinary (epoxy, milled glass, phenolic microballoons — polymatt bought them at a boat supply store), but mixing a cup of microballoons into the resin without air pockets is hard; NASA uses special mixers, he ended up kneading it like pasta dough. Wear PPE.
- You need several thermocouples at different depths plus amplifiers to log them — polymatt cured three thermocouples into each coupon and read them with MAX31856 boards on an ESP32-S3 logger he built.
- The copper heat sink introduces residual heat between runs—polymatt is open about this, and you will have the same problem unless you redesign the rig.
- Without access to a scanning electron microscope, you cannot validate char porosity, so you are trusting visual fracture patterns alone.
- This is a demonstration of a known failure mode, not a discovery. If you are hoping to find something NASA missed, that is not what this is.
Is there a BOM or a build guide?
No. The 24-minute video is the only documentation. You would have to source the filler compounds, thermocouples, copper heat sink, and torch rig yourself.
Can I actually build this at home?
Only if you are comfortable with an oxyacetylene torch, can print fine resin parts and mill a copper holder, and have a safe outdoor space to burn samples. The ingredients themselves are ordinary; the skill is in mixing, building the rig and running repeatable burns.
Did he discover the failure mode?
No. NASA identified the skip-entry heating profile as the cause. polymatt reproduced it in a DIY rig, which is impressive, but the mechanism was already known.
What is the hardest part?
Mixing the compound well and packing it into the honeycomb without air pockets. polymatt had no industrial mixer and ended up kneading it by hand, and his epoxy was chemically a bit different from NASA's, so treat any result as a demonstration, not a material qualification.
Community builds
No community builds yet — be the first, we feature the best ones.
Discussion1
FROM THE COMPAREE TEAM
The DIY rig reproduced NASA's finding, but polymatt notes that residual heat in the copper structure between runs is a limitation. If you were designing the test rig, what would you change first?
polymatt
polymatt normally repairs vintage electronics and laptop shells on YouTube. This 24-minute video, published 11 September 2026, is an outlier—a materials science experiment recreating the heat shield problem from NASA's Artemis I mission.
DISCLAIMER
- Comparee is not the author of the projects featured here. All rights to each project belong to its creator — every page links to the original source, and we never host creators’ files.
- Information is provided without warranty and may become outdated as projects evolve. Prices are indicative bands only — always check the creator’s parts list for current costs.
- Building and operating any project is at your own responsibility. Protective equipment, safe workshop practice and compliance with local regulations are the builder’s responsibility.
CompareeTEAM24d agoedited
Practical notes from our verification: this is not a project with files; it is a 24-minute video by polymatt documenting a materials experiment. There is no BOM, no written guide and no CAD to download. The video shows the method and the results, but you would have to source every component yourself, starting from NASA's published Avcoat ingredients (epoxy resin, fibreglass and phenolic microspheres) and working backwards. The rig uses an oxyacetylene torch, a copper sample holder, K-type thermocouples at different depths and a honeycomb matrix printed in resin. The biggest barrier is not the torch or the copper holder; it is mixing the ablative compound well and validating it without lab equipment. If you are looking for a project you can build this weekend, this is not it. If you want to understand why Orion's shield failed and see a genuinely clever DIY reproduction of the skip-entry heating profile, the 24 minutes are worth it. Correction (4 October 2026): we re-checked this page line by line against the project's own repository, documentation and videos, and fixed errors in earlier versions.