NASA is preparing for Artemis II, a crewed flight that will send four astronauts on the first trip to the moon in more than half a century, with liftoff targeted for the first six days of April. The mission is drawing constant comparisons to Apollo, the program that put the first humans on the moon and set the pattern for decades of lunar exploration.
NASA’s Artemis approach is both an extension of Apollo’s blueprint and a departure in execution. Artemis II will fly the Orion capsule on what NASA has described as a test-focused path, without attempting a moon landing on the debut crew rotation, and it will use the rocket and spacecraft designed for later missions that involve new partnerships.
In explaining what distinguishes Artemis from Apollo, NASA astronaut Christina Koch, part of the Artemis II crew, said, “there is no way we could be that same mission or ever hope to even be.” Koch’s remark reflects the practical and cultural differences between eras, as Artemis is positioned as a program that aims to include more of society in its future lunar missions while relying on updated hardware.
The run-up to the moon also differs in tempo. The Apollo program reached the moon in eight years, putting Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin on the lunar surface in 1969 after NASA accelerated from putting its first astronaut in space. Artemis, by contrast, has progressed more slowly after years of shifting decisions about whether the next destination should be the moon or Mars, and the Space Launch System rocket has flown only once in a test flight without crew on board more than three years ago.
NASA’s Artemis schedule was overhauled in February by new administrator Jared Isaacman, who sought to emulate Apollo’s cadence while adjusting the mission sequence. Under the revamped plan for next year’s Artemis III, astronauts will practice docking Orion in Earth orbit with one or both lunar landers—under development by Elon Musk’s SpaceX and Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin—rather than attempting a landing. Isaacman’s changes also move a mission between Artemis II and the moon landing to Artemis IV in 2028.
The Artemis plan is also being pursued in an environment where the competitive landscape has shifted. During Apollo, the Soviet Union was the main rival, while China is now depicted as the leading competition, with robotic spacecraft already landed on the moon’s far side and a goal of landing astronauts near the lunar south pole by 2030. NASA is aiming for the same polar region, an area where shadowed craters are thought to contain ice that could support drinking water and rocket fuel, and Isaacman has signaled an emphasis on reaching the finish line before China.
The differences extend to the rockets themselves. Apollo’s Saturn V measured 363 feet (110 meters) and used five first-stage engines, while the Artemis Space Launch System is 322 feet (98 meters) and features four main engines plus two strap-on boosters. The Saturn V previously launched from Kennedy Space Center’s Launch Complex 39-A, now leased by SpaceX, and NASA will use neighboring pad 39-B for SLS flights.
Even as the launch pad remains at Kennedy, Artemis’s hardware history has included delays. SLS has flown only once, and hydrogen fuel leaks delayed the rocket’s debut in 2022 and reappeared during a countdown test in February, which stalling Artemis II. Helium trouble later also caused further delay, and NASA is now targeting an April liftoff.
Artemis II’s crew profile also underscores a key operational change. Launch Control stays in the same location, but where Apollo 11 included one woman in the packed firing room, Artemis is described as having a woman lead it: Artemis launch director Charlie Blackwell-Thompson.
NASA’s Artemis II is designed around a first test of life-support equipment. NASA decided long ago against orbiting the moon on the crew’s debut, judging that approach too dangerous, and instead set the main goal on testing the Orion capsule’s life-support equipment, which will fly for the first time on Artemis II.
The mission’s return path also draws a direct line from Apollo’s problem-solving playbook to Artemis’s orbital design. Like Apollo 13, Artemis II will take advantage of the moon and Earth’s gravity: it is described as making a “figure eight” after whipping around the moon, then heading home on a free-return trajectory that requires little if any fuel. The article notes that this kind of path helped get Apollo 13’s crew back safely after they had to abandon a moon landing.
Artemis II will spend a day in Earth orbit to confirm everything is working before igniting the main engine toward the moon. The capsule is described as taking three to four days to reach the moon and then continuing some 5,000 miles (8,000 kilometers) beyond, exceeding a distance record set by 1970’s Apollo 13. Like Apollo’s moon crews, Artemis astronauts will parachute into the Pacific after their mission.
Suiting up also differs from Apollo’s approach. For Apollo, the white, bulky spacesuits served both for launch and return and for moonwalks, because there was not enough storage space for different outfits. Orion capsules for Artemis are bigger, designed to hold four astronauts instead of three plus two sets of spacesuits, and NASA created brand new suits for use inside the capsule while relying on private companies for the suits for the moonwalking phase.
The Artemis plan described here includes custom-fitted orange launch and reentry suits for commander Reid Wiseman and his crew, with the article saying they would use the suits in a depressurization or other emergency. The suits, according to the description, can sustain the astronauts for up to six days, including the use of a straw inserted into the helmet to drink water or protein shakes and the use of built-in systems for waste management. Houston-based Axiom Space is designing the white moonwalking suits for future Artemis crews.
Looking past Artemis II, NASA’s long-term strategy retains ambition similar to Apollo while changing the mechanics. Apollo sought to beat the Russians to the moon and plant a U.S. flag, with astronauts landing six times from 1969 through 1972 and the longest surface stay lasting 75 hours. The Artemis approach, by comparison, is described as aiming for sustained lunar living, with Mars to follow, and Isaacman is cited saying, “day one of the moon base is not going to look like this glass-enclosed, domed city,” after unveiling a blueprint for a lunar base that includes habitats, rovers, drones, power stations and more.
For a first lunar landing, the article describes a complex plan: astronauts would launch to the moon aboard Orion and then, once in lunar orbit, transfer to a lander made by whichever private company is ready first—SpaceX’s Starship or Blue Origin’s Blue Moon. The astronauts would descend to the surface, spend a few days there, and then launch back to orbit to rendezvous with Orion, which would take them home.