The Apollo 11 Command Module as a Historically Significant Artifact

Since the Columbian exchange and the coming of a new age there have been a wide amount of technical feats and objects that have helped the world to overcome obstacles and set new precedents. Many of these artifacts have led to more adaptable innovations that change our lives mostly for the better, but occasionally at significant costs. While most artifacts are relatable to history in a wider historical context and different versions have arose over time to produce something most of us probably take for granted daily, there is one artifact in particular that I feel has aided in so many different fields of interest and captured the public’s interest intensely. It is NASA’s Apollo Missions.

There are over seven million parts that were engineered for the construction of this iconic spacecraft, all of them being grouped into four main sections: the Saturn V rocket propulsion system, the service module, the lunar module and the command module. All of these sub-assemblies and assemblies were produced by many different manufacturers that in the end developed new technologies that aid many people worldwide today. The practices of perfecting rocketry also have led to great developments which will be further discussed. The only item that returned back to earth is the command module, so it will be the main example used as a historical artifact, but in all reality, it was just one of many integral parts.

The main focus of this paper will be how the methods of engineering that went into the Apollo program have played the part in developing technologies, the economic and political costs associated with the program, and other factors that led to the demise of the American and Soviet rocket programs. July 20th, 2019 will mark the 50th anniversary of the seminal Apollo 11 flight that first put Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin on the Moon and more or less ended the Space Race with the Soviet Union. But to understand why this event was so important we need to examine what events led to creation of such technologies and why this Space Race came to be.

The topic of the Space Race is a very long and drawn out series of events that more or less was the image of the early Cold War, the subject of the Space Race/Cold War itself could have a paper just focusing on it. Rocketry and missile launches had been an experimental science since the dawn of the 20th century in both Europe and America. There has been testing in White Sands, New Mexico since the mid-1930’s. But it was not until World War II that the world saw rocketry used in such a destructive but proficient manner. The missiles that terrorized England were one of the great technologies held by the Nazi’s army, the Wehrmacht. This device was labeled the V-2.

After the fall of Nazi Germany, local German scientists and engineers had a choice (or sometimes not) of going with the U.S.A. or U.S.S.R. One particular scientist that was part of the Nazi V-2 rocket program was Wernher von Braun. As the Allies started dividing up Germany, the U.S. got their hands on von Braun and put him to work. At first, he was testing new and improved V-2 rockets at the Redstone Arsenal Army post near Huntsville, Alabama. The success of these rockets led to the Army Ballistic Missile Agency which put America’s first satellite into orbit.

Save your time!
We can take care of your essay

• Proper editing and formatting
• Free revision, title page, and bibliography
• Flexible prices and money-back guarantee

Place Order

After the American’s knew they had a foot in the door into space with von Braun and his team, it was now time to develop a rocket that could have an even bigger payload, this rocket would eventually become the Saturn V. Alongside the development of this rocket, there were many other undertakings that were happening simultaneously. The development and production of the Soviet Vostok rocket that carried Yuri Gagarin into space also prompted the United States to invest much more heavily into the newly formed National Aeronautics Space Administration, especially after President Kennedy announced his vision to put men on the Moon. This in turn led the Soviet Space Program to create their Soyuz spaceship, which is still in service today and launched by the S.P. Korolev Rocket and Space Corporation – Energia (named after Sergei Pavlovich Korolev- a renowned Soviet rocket engineer).

There were many manufacturers and companies that contributed to the build of the entire spacecraft with the aid and expertise of over 400,000 technicians and engineers. Most of the companies contracted had previous experience in the defense and aerospace industries including; North American Aviation (later Rockwell) built the Saturn V’s second stage and command and service modules, Rocketdyne constructed the rocket engines for the Saturn V, the Grumman Corp. built the lunar module, the Douglas Aircraft Company manufactured the rocket booster for Saturn V’s third stage (SIVB), the Westinghouse Corp. lunar camera), and IBM designed and integrated the Real-time Computer Complex system aboard the spacecraft and command center in Houston, TX. For the Apollo spacecraft there are five major manufacturing assemblies: the command module, service module, lunar module, launch escape subsystem, and the spacecraft-LM adapter. All but the LM are assembled by North American Rockwell. In a NASA document it claims: “One of the severest requirements of the Apollo program was for a heat shield that would withstand the intense aerodynamic heating experienced during entry from a lunar mission”. The heat shield is fabricated of a special stainless-steel honeycomb sandwich material that is then impregnated with a phenolic epoxy-resin material among other labor-intensive technical processes. This heat shield would be a crucial part of the overall technology that would lead to further developments in ceramics and composites. It was the innovation of the engineers and technicians that allowed such an object to be designed, tested and produced in order to complete the mission.

The costs associated with the Apollo mission (starting primarily in 1961) were enormous, in 1967 the federal budget allocated over 4% to NASA and other related endeavors, compared to less than 1% now from the most recent NASA budget report. According to Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2019, “the budget for NASA requests a total of $19.6 billion for NASA, a $500 million (2.6%) increase from the 2018 Budget ($61 million below NASA’s 2017 funding level)”. The government's space budget had grown from S347.5 million in 195S—the first year after the Soviets launched Sputnik1—to S7,6 billion during the coming year. It is generally agreed that through MA-9 NASA estimated the total costs of Project Mercury at roughly $400 million, not considering the hundreds of millions spent by DoD in space research with NACA/NASA contracts. When officially retired in 1978 the Apollo program would eventually top close to $20 Billion which by all accounts is an enormous amount of money, nearly $75 Billion in 2019 due to inflation. Other estimates range upwards of $300 billion dollars.

Once the United States were the first to put men on the Moon, in essence the Space Race was over in the view of many Americans and especially Congress. According to Arthur Smith, author of “British view of American and Russian Space Program since Apollo 11”, by 1972 the economic tides had shifted for NASA and their budget was being curtailed. Congress decided to scrap the three remaining Apollo Missions which in turn only saved the operational costs associated with the program, the main developmental costs were already accounted for and were therefore ‘lost’ money in the sense that they were not used. Compared to the Russian Space Program at the same time, there were no limitations on their budget and there has never been any evidence of a denied operation due to financial restraints. In my opinion, this unrestrained use of capital was one of the large contributing factors for the downturn of the Soviet economy that culminated with its eventual collapse.

There are many different technologies that arose from the Apollo programs other than the advancement of rocket launches of satellites that enable telecommunications. Some of the technologies developed by NASA during the Apollo missions go into many aspects of everyday life including the medical industry, energy sector and safety practices in many industries worldwide. Many of these ‘spin-off’ technologies used by other businesses, researchers and other institutes are provided assistance by NASA. The role that NASA has with the public and private sector is very important for the fact that they share information. To inform the public of how many of NASA’s new technologies can be employed, they publish a newsletter or bulletin of sorts titled Spinoff, which highlights their achievements and shares information with the public. Since 1976, Spinoff (which is part of the NASA Technology Transfer Program) has annually profiled an average of 50 commercial technologies with origins in NASA missions and research. In 2004 NASA published a Fact sheet titled ‘Benefits from Apollo: Giant Leaps in Technology’, in the publication it offered a some of these highlights which go to show the vast field of sciences that NASA research can eventually aid; In 1979, through a contract with NASA, Wyle-3S (a DoD contractor) built an enormously forceful shock and vibration system to simulate liftoff stresses on the launch pad. In addition to earthquake testing, the company has adapted its shaking technology to evaluate railway cars, rail- or road-transported cargo, truck refrigeration units and highway pavements without destroying or harming its surroundings. In 1980, St. Jude Medical’s Cardiac Rhythm Management Division used Apollo technology to develop a programmable pacemaker system. A physician can communicate with a patient’s pacemaker by means of wireless telemetry signals transmitted through the communicating head held over the patient’s chest. Where earlier pacemakers delivered a fixed type of stimulus once implanted, this system enables ‘fine tuning’ of the device to best suit the patient’s changing needs. By 1981, innovations developed with technology from NASA’s Apollo lunar module program created a renewable energy resource used on Earth and in space. Solar panels collect electricity by absorbing light when it strikes the surface and transfers it to a semiconductor. These solar panels are used on calculators, street lights, houses and on the International Space Station. The solar array surface area of the ISS currently on orbit is 9,600 square feet. The skyscraper-sized solar arrays harness energy from the sun to power the Space Station.

In conclusion, I feel that the Apollo command module was a small part that returned from a much larger vehicle and much larger picture of society in general. Through all the use of resources, whether it be environmental or the use of human mind and body, the need to get to the Moon was a endeavor like none other before and a chance to develop a new type of exploration. Along the way it mesmerized and captivated the world and the pioneering research and groundbreaking innovations led by NASA have helped millions of people worldwide through many different applications. The Apollo program may not remain, and its costs might have been heavy, but they certainly did not outweigh the benefits. It is by these occurrences that I deem the Apollo 11 command module quite a historically significant artifact.

Annotated Bibliography

1. https://history.nasa.gov/afj/ap11fj/pdf/19690020242_in%20this%20decade_a-mission-to-the-moon-1969.pdf
2. https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/apollo/missions/apollo11.html
3. https://www.nasa.gov/specials/apollo50th/before.html
4. https://spinoff.nasa.gov/back_issues_archives/1990.pdf
5. Riley, Christopher, and Phil Donning. 2012. NASA Mission AS-506 APOLLO 11 1969 (Including Saturn V, CM-107, SM-107, LM-5) Owner's Workshop Manual. Sparkford, Yeovil, Somerset, UK: Haynes. ISBN 978 1 84425 683 9 Library of Congress control no. 2009923195
6. Vavies, Steve, and Paul Crickmore. 2012. Lockheed SR-71 BLACKBIRD 1964 Onwards (All Marks) Owner’s Workshop Manual. Sparkford, Yeovil, Somerset, UK: Haynes. ISBN 978 0 85733 156 4 Library of Congress control no. 2012933489
7. Baker, Dr. David. 2011. NASA SPACE SHUTTLE 1981 Onwards (All Models) Owners Workshop Manual. Minneapolis, MN: Zenith w/ Haynes. ISBN-13: 978-0-7603-4076-9
8. Blair-Smith, Hugh. 2011. “System Integration Issues in Apollo 11.” IEEE A&E SYSTEMS MAGAZINE. October 2011.
9. Loory, Stuart H. 1963. “Are We Wasting Billions in Space?” Saturday Evening Post, September 14, 1963. AN: 18087388
10. Richers, Julia. 2017. “Remembering the Soviet Space Program.” Project Muse 18 (4): 843–47.
11. Smith, Arthur. “How The Space Farers Fare - A BRITISH VIEW OF AMERICAN AND RUSSIAN PROGRAMS SINCE APOLLO 11” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientist. April, 1972.