ARTEMIS VS APOLLO

 

By Wes Oleszewski- Aero News Network Spaceflight Analyst

There is no way to avoid the phenomena of people comparing Artemis to Apollo. The simple fact is… Artemis is not Apollo.

That said there are some areas where both programs have similarity. First, both objectives are sending astronauts to the Moon. Secondly, the reentry profile of both spacecraft is very similar. Both projects used the Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB) to prepare and stack their launch vehicles and add the crew’s spacecraft. Additionally, both programs used the Crawler/Transporter to roll their booster to the launch pad along the world-famous river-rock lined crawler way at the Kennedy Space Center. Yet during Apollo’s lunar missions, only one flight launched from Complex 39B- that was Apollo 10. All Artemis missions will use pad 39B. The Artemis’ SLS launch vehicle rolls to the pad in the company of a large launch tower which in general appearance is remotely kin to the Apollo Launch Umbilical Tower. Both Apollo and Artemis launch vehicles are equipped with escape towers that can serve to pull their crew modules away during a launch emergency. The launch itself will be controlled from the same Launch Control Center building that sent Apollo on its way. So, it may appear that both programs are very much the same… at first glance.

Especially close to the Apollo profile is the reentry profile for Artemis flights. Like Apollo, Artemis lunar missions will do what is commonly called a skipping reentry. Something that the Soviets learned the hard way is that a spacecraft returning from the Moon has such a high velocity that when it hits the Earth’s atmosphere the G’s encountered will kill any animal, turtle or human in the vehicle. Apollo’s Command Module (CM), however, had an off-set center of gravity and during reentry it was rolled to use it to create lift. So, the CM would dig into the atmosphere and use that friction to scrub off energy. Then it would roll back and use lift to gain some altitude. Once it was slower, it would roll back and continue the reentry. It worked every time. The Artemis Orion spacecraft will do the same basic maneuver. This was tested on the un-crewed Artemis I and it worked. But the angle was a bit too steep and caused some damage to the heat shield. Although the crew cabin remained at 72 degrees in temperature and no toxic gasses leaked into the pressure cabin, Artemis II will use a slightly adjusted reentry for greater safety.

Artemis, however, is cleverly leveraging all the best of past Apollo and Shuttle programs. The buildings, crawler way and launch pad were all there waiting. What goes into those buildings, however, is electronics and ground support equipment that are far more advanced than anything used in Apollo.

All of the people who worked on Apollo have long since retired. Yet, in their place are technicians, engineers, flight controllers and pad rats with the very same spirit. Artemis is definitely not Apollo, but that program’s motivation is still there. NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman arrived and pooled together a team motivated with the same Apollo “Right Stuff.” Prior to hist taking charge Artemis missions were set to launch on a cadence that would have one flight about every three years. Both he and his staff found that to be lackluster and doomed to fail. In one of his first press conferences, he announced that NASA would be compressing the cadence to something closer to Apollo. That would sharpen the edge of ground staff and mission controllers.

“We’ve brought our history books with us…” Nasa Associate Administrator, Amit Kshatriya told the press.

Thus, Artemis I was similar to the Apollo 4 and 6 un-crewed tests. Artemis II is similar to the Apollo 7 and 8 crewed vehicle check-outs. Artemis III will be and earth orbital check out of the Orion spacecraft, and the lunar landing vehicle is a similar manner to Apollo 9. If all goes well, Artemis IV will attempt a polar lunar landing. Most of the hardware for all of these Artemis missions and many more beyond has already been produced and on-hand. Plus, the Congress has fully funded the program through at least Artemis VII.

Yet, one thing needs to be kept in mind. Unlike the Space Shuttle which was declared “operational” after its fourth flight, NASA is not under political pressure to try to make Artemis look like some sort of an airline. Spaceflight is an inherently dangerous activity and the best way to get people killed is for management to forget it is inherently dangerous. This is why I was pleased when Associate Administrator, Amit Kshatriya told the press,

“…40 years from Challenger, nobody sitting in these chairs needs to be calling any of these vehicles operational.”

Thus, in that way, Artemis is exactly like Apollo.