How is landing on the moon not a publicity stunt? What can the humans do that massively cheaper robots couldn't - besides take some awesome photos and bring back some more moon rocks?
Of course there have long been plans to go back to the moon because its a cool fun thing to do and whoever happens to be president would likely be well remembered for taking credit for it. That doesn't give it credibility as a useful endeavor.
> How is landing on the moon not a publicity stunt? What can the humans do that massively cheaper robots couldn't - besides take some awesome photos and bring back some more moon rocks?
Humans have intuition and curiosity, they can spot something quickly in the distance that looks peculiar, go to it and quickly inspect it.
More science was done on the few hours spent on the Moon by astronauts than all the lunar and Mars robotic missions (lasting decades) combined. Robots won’t be comparable to human exploration until we have general AI and that’s far away. Otherwise you’d have a lot more robotic exploration on Earth.
I see. And how do you you know that elon, a notably close supporter of the president didn't have anything to do with the Artemis program? I notice that Chinese electric vehicles are essentially banned in the US, but probably that had nothing to do with Elon as well right? And what does it matter if Blue Origin also made money on the Artemis program?
> How is landing on the moon not a publicity stunt?
You've just changed your argument as I addressed your previous argument. Which clearly demonstrates that you don't have actual arguments against the Artemis program, rather you have some personal problem with Elon Musk.
That's fine, we all have our personal heros and villains. But don't be so disingenuous with your arguments or your reasoning.
The Artemis program was developed out of the Constellation program, which was initiated sometime around 2005 or 6.