7
$\begingroup$

Is there any major reason or research that can only can be done by humans or is it just so we can say "we did it again"?

$\endgroup$
19
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ I disagree that this question is a duplicate of the linked question, for two reasons. One is that the linked question asks about reusing Apollo-era technology. This question asks a different question, "why are we doing this at all?" The other is that the one answer to the linked question does not answer that question (or this one). $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 17, 2022 at 12:12
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, I refer to "why are we doing this" $\endgroup$
    – Bored duck
    Commented Nov 17, 2022 at 12:19
  • $\begingroup$ Yeah, why are we doing this? Do we really need humans on the moon to do what's needs to be done? We have robots for everything now. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 17, 2022 at 13:44
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The purpose of Artemis I is to give the Senate Launch System something to do. $\endgroup$
    – Mark
    Commented Nov 18, 2022 at 0:52
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ "Don't we already know we can land on the moon successfully?" is rhetoric. The statement being made is "we already know we can land on the moon successfully" and is insinuating a lack of justification for the mission. Also "is it just so we can say we did it again" is rhetoric too. I believe it is insinuating, again, that there is no value in the mission. I don't like phrasing questions with rhetoric because it sets a tone that draws out opinion rather than objective answers. $\endgroup$
    – Wyck
    Commented Nov 18, 2022 at 6:07

2 Answers 2

29
$\begingroup$

What's the real objective of Artemis I? Don't we already know we can land on moon successfully?

Since Artemis 1 is not going to land on the Moon, landing on the Moon is not an objective of Artemis 1.

Regarding "Don't we already know we can land on moon successfully?", we did. Technological skills are easily lost. They are a "use it or lose it" item. It took hundreds of thousands of people to develop and deploy the technology used in the Apollo program. Most of those people are now dead or retired. Many of the skills needed to reproduce that feat are lost.

Is there any major reason or research that can only can be done by humans or is it just so we can say "we did it again"?

During the Apollo era, Great Britain's astronomers and astrophysicists convinced Parliament to forbid spending any British government monies on human space exploration. The British astronomers and astrophysicists saw such spending as threatening the spending on their uncrewed space projects. Funding for British space projects instead withered because without the motivation that humans would eventually follow those uncrewed missions, those uncrewed missions had to compete with other science projects. While uncrewed spacecraft are cheap in comparison to a crewed mission, they are expensive compared to (for example) sending dozens of graduate students out in the field, or compared to medical experiments. Space research for the sake of space research had a very hard time competing with other sciences after the ban took place. It eventually recovered because Parliament eventually lifted the ban.

Moreover, one of the goals of the Artemis project is to land people on the Moon where Apollo didn't and couldn't go, such as the Moon's south pole, and to have them staying there for much long periods of time. An eventual goal is to move toward having permanent outposts on the Moon. Another goal is to learn how to send humans to Mars, with an eventual goal of having permanent outposts on Mars.

$\endgroup$
8
  • $\begingroup$ It was not closed tho :) $\endgroup$
    – Bored duck
    Commented Nov 17, 2022 at 12:19
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @Boredduck I expected it to be closed (and it still might be closed). I slipped that placeholder version of my answer in in anticipation that it would be closed. New answers cannot be posted once a question is closed, but edits to existing answers can be posted. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 17, 2022 at 12:55
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I retracted my closed vote. The question is actually a bit different. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 17, 2022 at 17:10
  • 1
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Stef It's important to remember how huge Apollo was in terms of spending, and how fast it was performed compared to Artemis and related projects. At its 1965 peak, NASA received over 4% of the total US federal budget. It now receives about 0.4% of the total US federal budget. NASA's budget was also huge then as compared to now in inflation-adjusted dollars. Kennedy's speech was in 1962. Seven years later, humans landed on the Moon. Artemis / Orion / SLS has taken well over a decade. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 18, 2022 at 10:04
4
$\begingroup$

The objective of Artemis 1 is to test the flight hardware, both the SLS rocket and the Orion spacecraft.

I think we can already conclude that the SLS rocket worked, as it delivered Orion to its LEO orbit and then kicked it into its intended trans lunar injection as planned.

The test for Orion is going to last several weeks, the intended minimal mission duration once the spacecraft is certified as mission ready. Which just happens to be about the time it takes to get to the moon and back, allowing NASA to also do some testing of their lunar injection trajectories and intended lunar orbit for future missions to the moon.

We've been to the moon before, yes. But that was doing the equivalent of a weekend trip to New York for someone living in Europe. You get to see the highlights and the biggest tourist traps but not much more. The goal of the Artemis program (in addition to gaining experience in long term manned spaceflights outside of low earth orbit) is to gain more knowledge about the moon in general in preparation for permanent outposts there, hopefully in preparation for permanent settlement and maybe even eventual colonisation of both the moon and Mars.

It's a small first step in what's intended to be a huge long term era of space exploration. Let's hope that this time we get to actually go all the way and not have those plans canceled for financial reasons because politicians want to spend the money on quick vote winning programs instead.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.