[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.