Well, I decided to break my conventional media omerta on #Artemis II this afternoon, & spent ten minutes on LBC Radio with Ali Miraj.
He's clearly sceptical about space exploration, including the billionaire bros & the wider geopolitical context.
I was invited on to "big up" space, to talk about the science, & probably to be gushy & enthusiastic, but as I actually agree with most of his concerns (even if some are not particularly well-informed), I'm not sure there was much point.
But at least I got to explain that Europe & the UK are key players in Artemis, which he evidently didn't know, & that the lunar south pole is a scientifically interesting place given the water there in shadowed craters.
And I also explained that Artemis II is a lunar flyby test, Artemis III is a LEO docking test, & Artemis IV will be the first crewed landing, but he still seems to think that if you're going to the Moon now, why not just pop down to the surface for a stroll?
I also mentioned the inspirational effect, that many kids will be watching Artemis & some will be excited about careers in STEM, hopefully.
But it also illustrated the oddity of talk radio, inasmuch as while my bits were just kind of "statements", he was actually having more substantial to & fro discussions with the callers who came later.
Again, I suspect we agree on much more than was perhaps clear. Maybe we should do this again, in person, & with an hour to bounce things back & forth.
@werdenfels @markmccaughrean
https://fosstodon.org/@AkaSci/116345981050066318
The ESA sign is there.
@werdenfels @AkaSci Other side, I think – that's a picture from Artemis I, IIRC, but I've seen at least one picture that suggests the same big NASA worm logo is on the base of Orion again.
As for why there's no equally large & prominent ESA logo, well, I suspect you realise that that's a rhetorical question 🙂
@werdenfels There was a pretty visible ESA logo on the Orion/ESM fairing, as seen in this image:
https://www.esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/Images/2026/03/Orion_on_a_roll
and there's a smaller one on the section which joins Orion & the ESM:
Plus @AkaSci has posted an inflight image which shows the logo, which is good.
@werdenfels @AkaSci As for ESA not being mentioned much in NASA coverage, quelle surprise 🙄
I mean, I remember the kerfuffle at Kourou on Christmas Day 2021, when JWST was launched on Ariane 5.
At the very last minute & despite weeks of tests & months of agreements, NASA suddenly declared that it was impossible to put the ESA logo next to the NASA one on the launch livestream.
Even though the livestream was coming from ESA.
An honest technical snafu? Sure, & I have a bridge to sell you ...
@markmccaughrean wrote:
«if you're going to the Moon now, why not just pop down to the surface for a stroll?»
Right.
Apollo 10's lunar module was only partly loaded with fuel...
(If I recall correctly.)
@vnikolov It was a remarkably stupid question that he kept asking to each listener who phoned in.
I mean, I had the feeling that he's an intelligent man, but this kind of wilful insistence on proclaiming a strong opinion on a subject which you know relatively little about ...
... well, it's the ridiculous world we live. The best I can do perhaps is to counter each stupid comment respectfully (although I don't think he appreciated being corrected on several things he said.)
I'm just impressed NASA didn't trust its own astronauts...
Otherwise, you are right, and I understand, but I don't know what a good effective way of dealing with this is.
Perhaps, indeed, keep and keep and keep repeating what is right.
After all, as an old proverb goes, water drops make holes in rock not with their force, but with the frequency of their falling.
P.S.
Perhaps unnecessary:
And in such circumstances one replies with corrections not for the sake of the host, of course, but for the sake of the audience, even though most of them remain unseen and unheard.
@vnikolov Indeed, although the hosts of these shows carry a lot of clout, & if he was displeased with being corrected in public (how else, mind you?), then could well be a black mark against my name in their contact book for the future.
That said, sometimes the researchers & bookers who make contact can be a little subversive & bring you on anyway 😉
Re: Artemis II vs Apollo 10, the latter at least had a LM & could in principle have landed (if not taken off again).
I see, thanks.
Yes, I understand how the politics of these shows can be complicated.
I hope you manage to find the right trade-offs.
Indeed it does seem that NASA has no present plans for an Artemis analogue of Apollo 10, but in my opinion there is plenty of room yet for their plans to change (even if the current official documents say otherwise).
Then, repeating the obvious, many aspects of the Artemis program are not really analogous to the Apollo program.
@vnikolov That's right – this is the analogue of Apollo 8; Artemis 3 will be Apollo 9; and then it's straight to Apollo 11 with Artemis IV.
That is, if you begin to believe that the insane SpaceX architecture involving many, many Starship flights & LEO fuel transfers is workable in the next decade. It makes this part of the programme look like child's play.
Indeed.
And I do not believe anything of the kind in advance.
Mark McCaughrean
Karl Name 
AkaSci 🛰️
Vassil Nikolov | Васил Николов