Artemis 2 - science or just an extension of space tourism?

[mids2019]

https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/news/chinese-spacecraft-makes-first-landing-moon-s-far-side-ncna954066

In 2024 the Chinese landed a probe on the car side of the moon to collects samples Nd also took many iphotos on the way down. The dark side of the moon has been seen by many humans it was simply that probes took the photos.

Since the 1970s there have been a myriad of probes and satellites that have been around the moon and scientifically we know a great deal about it.

So why Artemis? The flight has established no specific gain of note but has shown as can send humans safely into space (which really is the accomplishment). I personally think there has been a great deal of hyperbole.about this mission and it like all space endeavours with humans been as much about US national dominance and pride as much as general scientific benefit for humanity.

Ask scientists how they would have spent the cash and I am sure they would have suggested more space telescopes, gravity wave detectors etc. To discover fundamental secrets of the universe.

Artemis 2......a significant human moment or a high price US PR project with the aim of beating the Chinese and showing t they have the most impressive space program in the world (alongside the military as Trump often mentions currently)?

https://www.rand.org/pubs/commentary/2025/11/china-is-going-to-the-moon-by-2030-heres-whats-known.html

if we really had some sort of utopian society there all wished to go to the moon for H the advancement of humanity the US would collaborate with the Chinese on this to save m oney. It all seems like a more benign form of arms race (probably very much in parallel with a real one)

There are already companies trying to work out how to mine the moon for rare minerals. It strikes me as pure colonisation. I think I upset a friend who is fascinated by the whole thing by saying this though! I'm sure the astronauts themselves are doing it for the right reasons though.

I have ten daughters and they are interested in STEM but naieve enough to think this is not just about the USA (with a token Canadian). It is obvious that the U.S. with its great wealth can do stuff while British scientists gush celebratory platitudes (while British particle science faces 70% cuts). The first lunar landing in part was part of cold war dominance and it seems that Artemis may be the same but with China the long term focus. I am just not falling for the PR but maybe I am a geonchbag?

(There is also a good illustration of the human condition that at the same time Artmeis crew rounded the moon their president was stood beside an Easter bunny promising to bomb another country to the stone age.....)

Artemis II is an important step on the path to landing people on the moon again. It would be madness to have the first time you ever used the thing to also be the full moon landing mission so instead they're doing incremental testing. NASA did that for the Apollo landings too which is why it was Apollo 11 that actually landed, not Apollo 1.

If you're building a spaceship to take people to the moon then it makes sense to test it at the moon. And if you're doing that, then looping round the far side of the moon is a very energy efficient way of doing it due to how gravity works.

I can see the point from a national perspective of dominating space and I agree At this 2 is a stage in landing people on the moon again and possibly establishing moon bases. However China is doing exactly the same and it is obvious you can't untie moon landing from geo political rivalry in the very long term.

could it be argued that the U.S. wanted to do something in 2026 to beat the Chinese to it if they wish to get back first to the moon?

also I do think there was a fair degree of hyperbole that maybe wasn't as warrented in the 1970s that didn't quite wash with an audience well used to space flight in general.

I agree with @HowardTJMoon.

It's an obscene waste of money and resources instegated by the worlds biggest bully and show off, Donald Trump. Like most of what he does it is likely with the aim of personal financial gain somewhere along the line rather than any hint of what might be good for humanity.

Of the US land people on the moon there is only one state that will ultimately benefit ......the U.S. I personally think this is mega budget Willy saving by a super power glossed over with the pretence of science and utopian flannel about this being for humanity.

A great inspiration for those of lucky enough to live in the world's richest nation ......all the rest of us peasants can watch.

I thought it was so they could eventually build a refueling station there so they can go further into space?

If that was the case he would’nt of just deducted their budget for the next tax year massively.

Really ?! What a shame we have to be such parasites stripping anything we can from not just earth

Especially as the moon has such an effect on the earth….

It’s fucking madness to mess with that. Why can’t we put money into protecting what we have?

I can see the attraction from a technological pov, it proves certain theories and enables scientists and engineers to work on exciting things but space and the planets we know of are so desolate and bleak and here we have Earth but it feels like that’s not enough? Humans like to explore and create and problem solve but as you say why can’t we start here with all the things that could be explored or need fixing!

I just can't buy into pretending this isn't for essentially for US prestige and power projection. I find the rather utopian sound bites from the astronauts a little grating given the current state of the Earth. It feels.like a really expensive STEM display for primary school kids.

Yes I felt the same and full respect to them they are clearly highly intelligent and highly skilled but every time I’ve heard them speak it’s been more like a sermon.

Different people have different motives. I'm sure that many of the politicians who agreed the budget for this are thinking of national prestige. The CEOs of the companies that built the rocket are probably thinking of corporate profits and their own share options.

But many of the people working at NASA who plan and run the missions, and those in the manufacturers who actually designed and built the rockets, are thinking of the excitement of exploration and seeing this as a stepping stone to greater things. The astronauts will also be well aware of how influential these missions can be and how much of a platform they have.

I really don’t get this at all.

Where is the new science here? They seemed to do less than the Apollo missions.

All they did was fire a rocket at a particular point and allow the moons gravity to take it into an orbit where it would return to earth. They had the capacity to do micro burns if they needed any adjustments.

I think to some extent the science was over emphasised but there was an opportunity for some new imaging of parts of the Moon.

it's probably better to simply regard this as the first crewed test flight of the vehicle, and you don't pull the wings off anything on flight one..

In terms of trajectory the configuration of this particular vehicle meant there simply wasn't the propulsive capability to enter/leave Lunar orbit, a free return around the Moon was the best that it could do.

I don't feel something historic has been achieved and I don't know how many of the general public will remember the astronauts' names......I doubt this is going to be a future trivial pursuit type question .

Maybe the timing was unfortunate with the Iran war and may be a slightly more negative view of the U.S. generally....I don't know.

https://www.rand.org/pubs/commentary/2025/11/china-is-going-to-the-moon-by-2030-heres-whats-known.html

I was talking to a Chinese colleague and he thinks it's rather funny and a little racist how little attention is paid to the Chinese space program and there are certain people who are only happy when the right people get into space i.e..from western demlcracies.

When China does stuff do will we get the full on BBC live feed with gushing hyperbole from associated space experts? If not then we have a bias that does undermine the whole 'it's for humanith' thing which bugs me.

I think that's slightly unfair TBH.

The Chinese programme has been the subject of much discussion over the years on specialist fora.

Problem is the Chinese have kept a lot of what they are up to under wraps, for example we have a rough idea of the planned sequence of the Artemis missions but we have little idea what the Chinese planning because they are not really saying....

It's their choice to do that, but they can't then grumble about not making headlines on the BBC evening news.