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?
@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.)
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
Vassil Nikolov | Васил Николов