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 I heard a NASA interview where they stated, "We're going to get a lot of great pictures." Like, wow.

@donlamb_1 @PoLaRobs If the images had the same impact as the Blue Marble image in the 60s - then maybe it is worth it.

Unfortunately there is little excitement about these images outside of the space nerd (term of endearment) community.

The world was not unified behind the fate of the Artemis astronauts - too much really important stuff for too many humans on the too hot Earth to worry about.

@rhempel @donlamb_1
Hmm. How much impact should we expect for the investment of $4Bn in this mission alone? As you say, there are too many other things going on today that many people are concerned about. Back in the late 60s the Apollo missions were a welcome distraction for many from the cold war, which had reached a state of stalemate.

@PoLaRobs @donlamb_1 I think we are on the same page - Tang flavour crystals and Velcro aren't going to cut it in today's world.

There are definitely more important things to spend treasure on - and as much as the space nerd in me is impressed by the beauty of the Artemis capsule and launch system, the Apollo capsules look quaint and much more risky.

As long as people have to put off life saving medical treatment or worry about losing their ability to buy food, this stuff has to wait.