7

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"?

TrySCE2AUX
  • 3,255
  • 22
  • 39
Bored duck
  • 99
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
    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). – David Hammen Nov 17 '22 at 12:12
  • Yes, I refer to "why are we doing this" – Bored duck Nov 17 '22 at 12:19
  • 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. – user3528438 Nov 17 '22 at 13:44
  • @user3528438 I completely share your opinion. – Bored duck Nov 17 '22 at 14:14
  • 2
    The purpose of Artemis I is to give the Senate Launch System something to do. – Mark Nov 18 '22 at 00:52
  • 5
    "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. – Wyck Nov 18 '22 at 06:07
  • @user3528438 that's pretty much how people reasoned when Columbus was trying to get funding for his journey that ended up discovering the Americas. – jwenting Nov 18 '22 at 07:37
  • @Mark That is a cynical point of view, and it certainly has some aspect of correctness to it. Now it's up to NASA to make useful use of the overly expensive system that the US Congress has foisted upon NASA. – David Hammen Nov 18 '22 at 08:39
  • @jwenting - Apart from Christopher Columbus not having actually discovered the Americas, I am pretty sure that no one thought "we have robots for everything now" when they denied him funding. – Obie 2.0 Nov 18 '22 at 08:43
  • @Obie2.0 he discovered it, as the previous visits were unknown to him and his sponsors. And yes, people did state the equivalent of "we have robots already", as they stated there was no reason for another route to the orient because "what we have works just fine". – jwenting Nov 18 '22 at 09:02
  • @user3528438 We have all those nice robots on Mars because NASA and Congress view them as precursor missions to eventual human missions to Mars. Without the impetus that we will eventually send humans to Mars, the rationale for those nifty robots dwindles, and the spending will dwindle as well. We need robots as precursors. We need the eventuality of human missions to Mars (and maybe elsewhere) as justifications for those precursors. – David Hammen Nov 18 '22 at 09:09
  • @jwenting - Well, if that's the case, can we say that I discovered you? I didn't know about you until I saw your name just now. You were completely unknown to me. ;) I hope I get credit for this discovery. – Obie 2.0 Nov 18 '22 at 09:09
  • @DavidHammen Then (this nation's) NASA and Congress is truly unique. I thought they were doing those science on Mars just for the sake of science. – user3528438 Nov 18 '22 at 11:13
  • @user3528438 Not at all unique. Regardless of country, government funding for science for the sake of science is very rare. There's almost always an ulterior motive. It might be hidden for example, space telescopes give the hidden message "if we can spy on the universe with this precision, think of how well we can spy on you". That is an example of "soft diplomacy". – David Hammen Nov 18 '22 at 12:06
  • Voting to reopen. This is not a duplicate question, and the supposed duplicate does not have a good answer. We are mostly space enthusiasts here, so questions such as this one makes us uncomfortable. Tough. Questions such as this are being asked in the real world, including people who are of the opinion that "we have so many problems right now on Earth. Why are we wasting money on space exploration?" As space exploration enthusiasts, we should be able to answer such questions. – David Hammen Nov 19 '22 at 06:08
  • I would like an answer to this question so I can defend Artimus from taxpayers who question its value. I would edit it to :"What are the specific objectives of Artimus which cannot be accomplished faster, safer and cheaper with unscrewed spacecraft?" – Woody Nov 20 '22 at 21:18
  • @Woody You need to watch out when using "uncrewed". A lot of spellcheckers autocorrect that to "unscrewed". DYAC! – David Hammen Nov 21 '22 at 04:06
  • What a roller coaster of shut and re-opens hehe – Bored duck Nov 21 '22 at 09:57
  • @Wyck What I wanted to express is: "Don't we know we can land on the moon successfully?", in my experience when you use rhetoric in questions and there's an opinion disagreement people usually get more involved answering. As if I said "Aren't all cats orange like Garfield?" beside saying "Can cats be any color than orange?" I'm Spaniard tho, I might not be correct grammatically-wise, thanks for the corrections – Bored duck Nov 21 '22 at 11:25

2 Answers2

29

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.

Fred
  • 13,060
  • 4
  • 41
  • 78
David Hammen
  • 74,662
  • 5
  • 185
  • 283
4

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.

jwenting
  • 593
  • 3
  • 6