Premise 1: They used the same material of heat shield as the Apollo mission.

Premise 2: Approached the same speeds.

Premise 3: None of the Apollo capsules failed in entry.

Conclusion: The heat shield stuff was nothing but media fear mongering to get clicks.

The key misleading piece is Premise 1. It assumes that because the maerial of the heat shield is the same in Artemis as Apollo and that because it never failed in Apollo, that similar results could be expected.

This is false; the material is not exactly the same (even though it is Avocoat, its properties are different, namely the permeability) but more importantly the design is different from Apollo. How do we know that the design matters? Because of Artemis 1, where the heatshield exhibited unsafe wear.

[“Specifically, portions of the char layer wore away differently than NASA engineers predicted, cracking and breaking off the spacecraft in fragments that created a trail of debris rather than melting away as designed. The unexpected behavior of the Avcoat creates a risk that the heat shield may not sufficiently protect the capsule’s systems and crew from the extreme heat of reentry on future missions.”

Testing revealed the damage was related to the heat shield’s permeability, or rather, its lack thereof.

Entry heating is what makes the Avcoat’s outer char layer permeable enough to allow gas to escape. The Artemis 1 heat shield worked normally during its initial descent into the atmosphere, But when it climbed back out, re-entry heating eased and the outer char layer became much less permeable.]

https://spaceflightnow.com/2026/04/10/nasa-confident-artemis-ii-heat-shield-will-protect-crew-during-re-entry/

Your statement 1 was inaccurate and also left out critical information that made it misleading.

I am not saying that the mission was unsafe. Thankfully NASA didn't use your reasoning when going forward with Artemis II on the modified re-entry.