[mass_and_energy]

Not to throw cold water on Artemis, because I'm enthralled by the mission, but... With all the things awry in our countries and the world at large, is going to the moon the best use of government money? There's an opioid epidemic, a housing crisis, a mental health crisis, food is getting more and more expensive, and climate change is exacerbating the pre-existing environmental racism not to mention resulting in an influx of climate refugees.

Is putting people on the moon for scientific exploration and human pride really a priority, budget-wise? That's not a rhetorical question, it's an invitation for discussion.

[kcplate]

My opinion is yes, because in reality the alternative is none of the things you mentioned will get a single dollar more than they would if we don’t do it. Call me cynical but if the alternative is the same, I would rather have human knowledge increase through space and scientific exploration.

[ajshdncjxndjx]

Yes. Nearly all of those problems are at the root cultural and solved by installing rulers that care about Americans and not the .01%. They’re standard corrupt and greedy elites problems. Throwing money at those problems doesn’t really help.

Pushing tech forward is one of the best things we can do since it often ends up bringing up the bottom end of society. There’s also significant cultural value in accomplishing incredible feats. America is too diverse right now and lacks a coherent culture, so we’re unable to mount any kind of defense against the elites. We need some kind of shared national identity and going to the moon regularly can definitely help with that.

[slowmovintarget]

This is the same argument that has always been levied at the space program, and the answer is that it has always been worth it. The things we end up learning impact all of society, and the long term benefits are huge.

[hackeraccount]

10 seconds of Googling says Artemis is 10 billion a year. Throw that money at any other item - is it improved to the degree that's it's worth giving up Artemis?

If the US Federal government spent 77 billion instead of 67 billion on housing assistance how much better off would people be?

This is all stuff that's hard to put a dollar figure on, which is to say they're political choices.

[Dalewyn]

>is it improved to the degree that's it's worth giving up Artemis?

Considering Artemis has produced quite literally nothing of value?

Yes.

[hackeraccount]

That's like saying Bald Eagles produce nothing of value so we might as well hunt them to extinction. I mean clearly (I think it's clear anyhow) they produce some value it's just not an easily quantifiable one.

Arguably there's a value there even if you never see a Bald Eagle flying.

The same way I might get something from a program like Artemis that's produced and may never (for me at least) produce anything of value. Equally I get something from a Housing program even if I know for certainty I will never need to make use of it.

The value at question here is in large part (though obviously not entirely ) not quantifiable.

[Dalewyn]

Artemis has not produced anything of value, literally:

* The SLS is a rehash of Space Shuttle components with no new technology. Arguably, it's a regression since we will be using reusable SSMEs as disposables.

* Orion serves no valuable purpose in the wake of Crew Dragon and, indeed, even Starliner.

* The entire program has achieved nothing outside of one or two test launches depending on how you count.

Any other use of this money would produce more value, because any value is bigger than zero.

[exe34]

At a time when predators are hunting down our brethren, when entire crops of fruit have been lost to changing climate and our youth are starving, is it really time to send our bravest and most adventurous people out into the plains of Africa? We should solve the problems we have up here in the trees first!

[Jeremy1026]

Science spending attributed to .54% of the 2024 Federal budget. While the government isn't spending $0 on NASA, it's budget is barely a drop in the bucket.