[shadowofneptune]

A lot of the discussion overlooks or wishes to avoid an uncomfortable problem with the Artemis program: Artemis III's hardware will not be ready for the forseeable future. The program has had multiple shakeups so far. This is a program heading for cancellation.

The flight risk is surely acceptable if this is not the first flight of many but the last.

[wongarsu]

The threat of a Chinese moon landing keeps the Artemis program alive. As long as Artemis is slowly working towards the goal of eventually landing Americans on the surface of the moon and eventually building a habitat they can be injected with money and manpower whenever geopolitical or ideological demands arise. If it was canceled outright it would be much harder to react to any Chinese success

[ApolloFortyNine]

>The threat of a Chinese moon landing keeps the Artemis program alive.

I don't disagree but I also don't really get it. The US performed the feat almost 60 years ago when the technology to do it didn't exist at the beginning of the program, and people didn't even know if it would be possible.

Today it's pretty well understood as a funding challenge more than anything. And sending people with the level of automation we have available today is essentially just a political move.

[wongarsu]

There's the obvious meme of "the US used to be able to do it, but can they still do it?". That wouldn't stand in question if the US had say a Mars mission, but if all the US can show are some low earth orbit activities while China has astronauts walking the moon that makes for a great propaganda point for the Chinese. Something to the tune of "As the American empire declines, the Chinese empire rises"

But the more impactful point is that the Chinese don't want to stop at what the Apollo program accomplished. They want to build a moon base, turn it into a lunar research station and invite other countries to cooperate. If the Chinese are wildly successful on that front, cooperating with them to get access to their moon base might be very enticing. Both for research about the moon and about low gravity. If the US doesn't answer with their own moon base that might end up in a reversal of the ISS situation (where everyone except China was invited to cooperate on the ISS).

Of course we don't know whether the Chinese will be successful in those points. But so far their space program has a great track record. They did manage to build their own space stations and lunar rovers, everything after that is, as you say, mostly a funding challenge

[randomNumber7]

> Today it's pretty well understood as a funding challenge more than anything.

I'm not sure this is true. We had very good scientists and engineers at that time.

[trogdor]

> The threat of a Chinese moon landing

Maybe I’m naive, but what is the threat here?

> If it was canceled outright it would be much harder to react to any Chinese success

I feel like the appropriate reaction would be to congratulate China.

[wongarsu]

We need more people like you in government

[tonyonodi]

I understand the point you’re making, but if this is a programme doomed to achieve nothing, that makes the risk even less acceptable.

[shadowofneptune]

That is equally fair. My position I suppose is that my enthusiasm has been spent on so many half-finished ambitious programs like this that it has all run out by 2026. Constellation, Asteroid Redirect, Artemis. If I was older that would include SEI.

At least this one had real missions fly if it suffers the same fate. The crew of Artemis is among the ones most aware that most space missions never happen. The anxiety of being in these astronaut classes must be unbearable, especially as the ISS ages. I don't know if this mission can maintain public confidence in the program as the world grows more chaotic and people's attentions are not focused on the sky but the ground.

[idlewords]

I think you mean Artemis IV (the moon landing)? Artemis III is now a near Earth orbit mission to dock with whatever mockup lander SpaceX or Blue Origin can throw up in time.

[shadowofneptune]

Right, I forgot about that development. A very late change in program structure, and having your main lander option have an indefinite schedule is quite bad!

[ACCount37]

You're saying that as if Artemis III is going to be the first time Artemis eats delays.

What I'm seeing from Artemis recently is "good signs of life" rather than the opposite.

They acknowledged that Artemis III is "system tests" rather than "a full landing", which gives it far better chances of happening before 2030. They're trimming the fat deposits from the program by removing things like Gateway or NRHO. They're pushing for a more aggressive launch cadence. They're actually seriously bringing up "a persistent Moon base" and "manned flights every 6 months" as Artemis program goals.

This is more focus and ambition than what NASA had in actual literal decades.

[cubefox]

> This is more focus and ambition than what NASA had in actual literal decades.

No doubt, and most of that is due to Isaacman. But when the government party changes, they will replace him. Possibly again with a politician/bureaucrat like Bill Nelson, who is unlikely to similarly shake things up when necessary.