From Apollo to Artemis

I'm old enough to be of that generation that saw mankind's first lunar landing and will probably still be around to see the next one.  From Apollo to Artemis, you might say.

I'm a huge admirer of the Apollo program.  I watched it on TV "back in the day" as we old-timers like to say.  I own movies and documentaries which I watch repeatedly.  One of my favorites is HBO's 2005 television mini-series, "From the Earth to the Moon" featuring Tom Hanks.  I've mentioned the Apollo program several times in this blog.

Having read this, it may surprise you to learn that I didn't bother to watch any part of the first manned Artemis mission (Artemis II).  Not the lift-off, nor the lunar orbits, nor the return and splashdown.  Why not?  Because it's been done.

Don't get me wrong.  I applaud mankind's return to space.  I honestly feel that it's a much better expenditure of our time, energy and ingenuity than waging pointless wars (which, of course, we continue to do).  Why, then, am I so seemingly uninterested?  

I suppose it might be because Apollo did it for the first time, giving this latest sojourn something of a "been there, done that" vibe.  During the nineteen sixties, nobody knew for sure whether flying to and landing on the moon and then returning safely back to Earth could be done.  Seeing something as marvelous and as dangerous as that being accomplished for the first time creates a tension and a thrill that just can't be recaptured.

Maybe it's because I was an imaginative young boy back then, with my eyes literally full of stars and my head full of dreams of becoming an astronaut.  Let's face it, the only way I would stand any chance of flying into space at my age is by legally changing my sir-name to Shatner.

What really gives me a case of the "Mehs" regarding the Artemis II mission, though, is that it has offered us nothing new.  If we would have found a way to travel there and back in a fully reusable vehicle, for example, that might have piqued my interest.  But, no, we did essentially the exact same thing that we did when we left off a little over 53 years ago,  We built a big-ass rocket to get us into orbit with two solid rocket boosters to help get the rocket off the launch pad and an additional stage to get us to the moon, just like before.  The boosters aren't even re-usable, unlike those that the orbiter (space shuttle) used. 

Earthrise by Apollo 8 (left) vs. Artemis II (right)

The crew did get some spectacular pictures of the Earth rising above the lunar horizon ... much like the one that Bill Anders took back in 1968 (and I still think that the 1968 photo is better than the latest ones).  Oh, wait, there is one thing that we did differently from the last time.  We didn't actually land on the moon!

Okay, I get that one has to (re)learn to crawl before one can walk, and I did enjoy seeing a fellow Canadian joining the the Artemis II crew (that's one small step for beer, one giant leap for poutine, eh?)  That was pretty cool.  And I do understand that the plan is to work toward developing a more long-term presence on the moon this time around, with an eye toward hoarding its mineral resources and any water that we might find there (just like we've been doing down here on Earth all these years) and maybe to set up a staging point for launching us to Mars (which has about as much chance of being rendered habitable before we completely destroy the planet that we already live on as I have of winning the American Powerball lottery next weekend).

Even the name of the new program is questionable.  In Greek mythology Artemis was Apollo's twin sister.  This may make the name seem appropriate for the new lunar program until you consider that these "twins" are more than 53 years apart in age!  It may be inconsistencies like that which have dampened my enthusiasm for the new program.  Or maybe it's just cynicism on my part.  Who's to say?