I'm as fascinated by the Artemis II mission as many other people, but as scientist I'm frustrated that experts interviewed about it in the media are rarely asked to justify the truly astronomical cost. So far the program is reported to have cost $93Bn, with the direct costs of this mission alone amounting to more than $4Bn. I'm perhaps particularly sensitive to this because I'm frequently asked to justify funding three orders of magnitude smaller that we have used to improve knowledge of how the Antarctic ice sheet will respond to climate change and contribute to future sea-level rise.

@PoLaRobs We know what the justification is - "gotta get there before the Chinese."

(*Why* the USA gotta get there before the Chinese is the bit that isn't explained.)

@TimWardCam The strange thing is that this line of reasoning doesn't seem to be working for polar science, which is needed to inform us about a range of threats we need to understand better to plan adaptation for a resilient future.