Sim, enviar pessoas em vez de robots é algo muito emocional, é algo que pode inspirar a humanidade.
Mas do ponto de vista prático, é irrelevante. As missões Voyager fizeram mais pela exploração espacial que todas as missões lunares tripuladas juntas.
Nesse vídeo que aí coloquei atrás esse Ivo refere uma das razões para estarmos a enviar humanos em vez de apenas robots. Vão comparar dados sobre as células estaminais que ficaram em terra vs as que sofreram radiação devido à missão.
Confesso que não são questões de pessoalmente domine, mas certamente terá interesse cientifico.
O que se nos podemos questionar (sobretudo os contribuintes americanos já que só esta pequena missão de 10 dias acho que custou 93mil milhões USD) são os custos destas missões e o custo/beneficio.
Seja como for perguntei aqui no Perplexity Pro com o meu modelo favorito neste momento (Claude Sonnet 4.6) mais info sobre isto e a importância de levarmos seres humanos nesta missão e esta foi a resposta dele:
"NASA's Artemis program marks humanity's return to the Moon after more than 50 years, with Artemis II having launched in late March/early April 2026 — sending four astronauts on a lunar flyby for the first time since Apollo 17 in 1972.
The Artemis Mission Timeline
The program is structured as a series of increasingly ambitious missions:
Artemis II (April 2026) — Crewed lunar flyby, testing life support, navigation, and deep-space communications aboard the Orion spacecraft
Artemis III (2027) — Crewed systems demonstration in preparation for landing
Artemis IV (2028–2029) — First crewed Moon landing since Apollo 17, targeting the lunar south pole
Artemis V (2029–2030) — Expanding lunar surface exploration capabilities
2030s — Establishment of a permanent lunar base
Why Send Humans (Not Just Robots)?
Crewed missions carry unique strategic and scientific weight that robotic missions simply cannot replicate:
Technology validation — Only humans can fully stress-test life support, propulsion, and navigation systems in real deep-space conditions
Political and strategic credibility — Crewed missions signal long-term commitment, giving international partners and private companies confidence to align their own plans with NASA's timeline
Scientific adaptability — Astronauts on the surface can make real-time decisions, collect complex samples, and respond to unexpected discoveries far faster than remotely operated robots
Human health research — Missions like Artemis II are studying how deep-space radiation and microgravity affect the human body, essential for future Mars missions
The Geopolitical Dimension
The main driver today mirrors the Cold War Apollo era — competition, but now with China instead of the Soviet Union. China has successfully landed robotic probes on the Moon four times and plans to land taikonauts by 2030. NASA administrator Jared Isaacman and members of Congress have explicitly framed Artemis as a race to establish American (and allied) presence on the Moon before China does.
The Bigger Picture: Moon as a Stepping Stone to Mars
NASA's long-term vision is not simply to revisit the Moon but to stay there and use it as a proving ground. The lunar south pole is of particular interest because of confirmed water ice deposits — water can provide drinking water, breathable oxygen, and even rocket fuel, drastically reducing the cost of deep-space missions. As one expert put it, "establishing a presence on the Moon for an extended period is significantly safer, less costly, and easier for testing how to live and work on another planet". The $93 billion program ultimately aims to build the infrastructure and knowledge base needed for the eventual crewed mission to Mars."
PS: Afinal (diz aí no fim desse texto) os 93B são o custo total do programa Artemis. Menos mal, mas não deixa de ser muito dinheiro e umas das razões destas missões que não as oficiais parece-me ser a guerra Fria 2.0 com a China.
]
]
][