NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 5

[Paul451]

Considering that VP Pence repeatedly touted that Artemis would land "the first woman" on the moon,

it's also humorously clueless (or is that just the sound of an axe being ground):However, under the Biden Administration, NASA is not immune from the left’s woke onslaught. Indeed, the Artemis Project is now being advertised with promises that astronauts will be selected for the mission based on gender and race instead of competence and excellence.

Can we not act like every single thing must be part of the current obsession?

Nelson got to fly on the shuttle as a politician at tax-payer's expense, purely as a way for NASA to buy favours in Congress. [Sen.Garn was the Republican match.] Such politically motivated "Fam flights" are common in defence aviation. The reason there was a school-teacher on Challenger on its failed flight was as part of a "civilians in space" type of effort to make the space program appeal to more average people. The first American woman in space was publicised as an achievement itself (on the flip-side, she had to hide her sexuality because the agency feared triggering the culture warriors of the day. First lesbian in space was not promoted.) Likewise the first black woman. NASA routinely touts their "role-models" for public engagement.

And indeed, during the Space Race, US/USSR space programs constantly hyped up their "firsts" and "records" to often amusing/ridiculous extremes, and they still do.

[VSECOTSPE]

Considering that VP Pence repeatedly touted that Artemis would land "the first woman" on the moon,

Yeah, it’s a poorly informed, poorly written, lazy, illogical, bizarro-world budget plan.  It criticizes the current Artemis Program under the Biden Administration for the first-woman-and-person-of-color-on-the-Moon goals.  But a quick Google search would have informed the authors that Bridenstine set the first-woman-on-the-Moon goal under the Trump Administration.  And despite heavily criticizing Artemis for these goals, the document just recommends funding Artemis at the requested level, anyway.

Where the plan does take cuts from NASA is science, ostensibly to defund climate change research.  But the amount cut from science, $3.6B, is $1.4B more than the entire Earth Science budget.  So Astrophysics, Heliophysics, and Planetary Science would also take big hits, despite the plan’s ostensible intent to refocus NASA on exploration.  (And of course, only a fraction of Earth Science is related to climate change research in the first place.)

I wouldn’t normally give budget plans from the political fringes the time of day.  But to the degree that the fringe holds the balance of power in the Republican House this year and next and to the degree that this document or something close to it is their budget plan, it’s important to pay attention for now.  The main thing is that their proposed cuts are large and that’s where they’ll be starting from.

[woods170]

It’s not an article.  It’s a budget plan from a think tank.

Considering that VP Pence repeatedly touted that Artemis would land "the first woman" on the moon,

it's also humorously clueless (or is that just the sound of an axe being ground):However, under the Biden Administration, NASA is not immune from the left’s woke onslaught. Indeed, the Artemis Project is now being advertised with promises that astronauts will be selected for the mission based on gender and race instead of competence and excellence.

Will point out that to be selected for NASA astronaut training means that one is competent and excellent with likely a handful of science and/or engineering degrees.
In other word, there are no lesser active NASA astronauts among those who are qualified for spaceflight.

Agreed. Among those equally qualified and competent astronauts are several women and several people of color. Those can easily be selected for Artemis III without compromising "competence and excellence".

So, those fear mongers who used the "gender and race before competence and excellence"-argument where just doing their usual FUD routine.

[BrightLight]

Mark Wiese of NASA spoke at the SpaceCom conference about the Gateway logistics in Orlando Florida "Cislunar: Between the Earth and the Moon" in part about the Dragon XL

"NASA anticipates starting work later this year on the first cargo mission (using the SpaceX Dragon XL) for the lunar Gateway, three years after awarding SpaceX a contract for such missions.

NASA selected SpaceX in March 2020 for its first Gateway Logistics Services contract to transport cargo to and from the lunar Gateway. SpaceX will develop a version of its Dragon cargo spacecraft, called Dragon XL, that would launch on a Falcon Heavy to deliver several tons of cargo to Gateway and remove trash."

extracted from https://spacenews.com/nasa-plans-to-start-work-this-year-on-first-gateway-logistics-mission/

[yg1968]

Mark Wiese of NASA spoke at the SpaceCom conference about the Gateway logistics in Orlando Florida "Cislunar: Between the Earth and the Moon" in part about the Dragon XL

"NASA anticipates starting work later this year on the first cargo mission (using the SpaceX Dragon XL) for the lunar Gateway, three years after awarding SpaceX a contract for such missions.

NASA selected SpaceX in March 2020 for its first Gateway Logistics Services contract to transport cargo to and from the lunar Gateway. SpaceX will develop a version of its Dragon cargo spacecraft, called Dragon XL, that would launch on a Falcon Heavy to deliver several tons of cargo to Gateway and remove trash."

extracted from https://spacenews.com/nasa-plans-to-start-work-this-year-on-first-gateway-logistics-mission/

It's interesting that they are sticking to the 2027 date for Artemis IV. I think that it is a good idea to start it this year, even if HLS and the spacesuits are late, the logistics module would still be needed for Gateway. 

[yg1968]

Aside from the make believe right wing bs, my bet is that there won't be a budget this year at all.

The house is doing its normal song and dance about debt and how budgets must be cut because there is a democrat president. As slim as their majority is, and how unorganized they are, I just don't see a budget getting passed (especially one that both the house and senate can agree with).

Instead, its more likely we'll have 1 or multiple government shutdowns (costing nasa 10s of millions of dollars and losing months of work). Nominally, there will be a extension of the 2022 budget.

Shutdowns are unlikely but a year long CR is likely in my opinion. I think that you mean an extension of the 2023 budget. Going back to the FY2022 level is the House's starting point but it's unlikely to be their end point. In terms of BS, both parties do it. Rhetoric is part of politics on both sides. I could give you specific examples but I won't since this isn't a space policy thread. Incidentally, this document is from a think thank, it's not from the Republican party.

[woods170]

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1628468906603032576

NASA's Mark Wiese says on a panel at SpaceCom that he expects the agency to give the formal authorization to proceed to SpaceX for the first Gateway logistics mission this year; planning a 48-month lead time to get it ready in time for Artemis 4 in ~2027.

It looks like that my assessment from last week was wrong. This is one of those times that I'm glad to be proven wrong.

[yg1968]

It’s not an article.  It’s a budget plan from a think tank.

Considering that VP Pence repeatedly touted that Artemis would land "the first woman" on the moon,

it's also humorously clueless (or is that just the sound of an axe being ground):However, under the Biden Administration, NASA is not immune from the left’s woke onslaught. Indeed, the Artemis Project is now being advertised with promises that astronauts will be selected for the mission based on gender and race instead of competence and excellence.

Will point out that to be selected for NASA astronaut training means that one is competent and excellent with likely a handful of science and/or engineering degrees.
In other word, there are no lesser active NASA astronauts among those who are qualified for spaceflight.

Agreed. Among those equally qualified and competent astronauts are several women and several people of color. Those can easily be selected for Artemis III without compromising "competence and excellence".

So, those fear mongers who used the "gender and race before competence and excellence"-argument where just doing their usual FUD routine.

My understanding is that a woman will be chosen for Artemis III no matter what (and that was also the case under the Trump Administration). Nelson said that a person of color might not be on the first mission. That raises the question as to whether the Biden Administration really needed to change the Trump Administration's slogan from the "first woman and the next man" to the "first woman and the first person of color" to go the Moon. That gave the impression that the astronauts for Artemis III would be chosen according to their race and gender as opposed to competency, which wasn't the case (as Nelson explained) but that is the impression that the change in slogan gave. The fact is that a number of astronauts chosen by NASA for the Artemis astronauts cadre (which VP Pence favored) were persons of color, so that was going to happen anyways but the Biden Administration wanted to take credit for it and show that they were more inclusive than the prior administration, even though nothing had actually changed. The rhetoric goes both ways, it's not only on one side.

[VSECOTSPE]

That raises the question as to whether the Biden Administration really needed to change the Trump Administration's slogan from the "first woman and the next man" to the "first woman and the first person of color" to go the Moon.

I don’t think the Biden Administration added the first-person-of-color goal.  That terminology seems to have been in use more than a year before the election (11/3/20) and Biden’s inauguration (1/20/21).  For example:

[see light green inset towards bottom] NASA will land the first woman and first person of color on the moon in 2025 as part of the Artemis mission

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-7601423/NASA-aims-land-humans-Mars-2035-moon-mission-brought-forward-2024.html

That British article is dated and was last updated on 10/22/19.

I suspect Bridenstine originated and started using the first-person-of-color goal as he was trying to sell Artemis.  Those kinds of details (the Artemis name, first woman, etc.) seemed to flow from him, not from Pace, Pence, or anyone else in the WH.

Another reason not to give credence to that budget plan (I hesitated to post it), except to the extent that the numbers in it are representative of the cuts that the Republican fringe that controls the balance of power in the House will be starting from.

[yg1968]

[see light green inset towards bottom] NASA will land the first woman and first person of color on the moon in 2025 as part of the Artemis mission

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-7601423/NASA-aims-land-humans-Mars-2035-moon-mission-brought-forward-2024.html

That British article is dated and was last updated on 10/22/19.

I suspect Bridenstine originated and started using the first-person-of-color goal as he was trying to sell Artemis.  Those kinds of details (the Artemis name, first woman, etc.) seemed to flow from him, not from Pace, Pence, or anyone else in the WH.

Another reason not to give credence to that budget plan (I hesitated to post it), except to the extent that the numbers in it are representative of the cuts that the Republican fringe that controls the balance of power in the House will be starting from.

The Green insert was added after 2019, that is why it says that humans will land on the Moon in 2025 (it was 2024 under the Trump Administration).

The date and the slogan of the Artemis program were changed under the Biden-Administration. I remember it. See, for example, this article:

This funding request "keeps NASA on the path to landing the first woman and the first person of color on the moon under the Artemis program. This goal aligns with President Biden's commitment to pursue a comprehensive approach to advancing equity for all," the NASA statement reads.

The statement marks the first time that the agency has specified it will land a person of color on the moon;, previous comments about Artemis have only referred to landing the "next man and the first woman" on the moon.

https://www.space.com/nasa-sending-first-person-of-color-to-moon-artemis

[clongton]

*Removed and poster in timeout*.

Please take phrases like these to the political threads. It has no business here.

[clongton]

Discussions about astronaut gender and race do not belong here. Please take those thoughts to the space policy threads.

[yg1968]

We could do some amazing science with a human base on the Moon:
https://bigthink.com/hard-science/we-need-human-moon-base/

[VSECOTSPE]

We could do some amazing science with a human base on the Moon:
https://bigthink.com/hard-science/we-need-human-moon-base/

Some of that is junk science, like this quote:

Or an advanced extraterrestrial civilization could have built a monitoring post there to observe us. (Wouldn’t we do the same on a distant exoplanet where we have detected a biosphere? It’s a possibility worth investigating.)

The rest, while potentially worthwhile research, doesn’t make a case for doing it from an Antarctic-like lunar base, or necessarily even from the Moon.

That case may exist, but it has not been made, and certainly not in that article.

It would be interesting for NASA have the NRC do a study on research that can be conducted from the Moon, how that research compares against other decadal research priorities, whether the Moon is right place to conduct that research, and what research mode (local base, separate expeditions to different target locations, human/robot mix, etc.) makes the most sense over the next decade or two.  It’s one of the foundational justifications that Artemis is lacking.

I doubt NASA will take that step because the answer is unlikely to align with the current Artemis plan or justify the spending.  But it should have been done a long time ago.  Cart, horse.

[Coastal Ron]

We could do some amazing science with a human base on the Moon:
https://bigthink.com/hard-science/we-need-human-moon-base/

If the goal was science on the Moon, then we would have been doing it long ago with robotic explorers that could stay on the Moon for years. Unlike with going to Mars, robotic exploration on the Moon can be done in near realtime, and mission could launch throughout the year, instead of once every 2 years with Mars exploration.

But science on the Moon has never been a priority for Congress, or for any Presidents after the Apollo program ended.

As it is, science on the Artemis program sure seems like a secondary goal squeezed within the goal of humans walking on the surface of the Moon, instead of an integrated effort.

For instance, NASA has the Artemis III Science Definition Team Report, and Section 2.1 The Artemis Science Plan lists seven objectives.

- The first five are focused on studying the history of the Moon, and the Sun.

- One focuses on "Conducting experimental science in the lunar environment".

- The last one is "Investigating and mitigating exploration risks to humans".

So except for the last one, all the rest could be done with robotic exploration systems, either as part of the Artemis program or separately. And none of those six would have an urgent political need.

Just an observation...

[goretexguy]

We could do some amazing science with a human base on the Moon:
https://bigthink.com/hard-science/we-need-human-moon-base/

If the goal was science on the Moon, then we would have been doing it long ago with robotic explorers that could stay on the Moon for years. Unlike with going to Mars, robotic exploration on the Moon can be done in near realtime, and mission could launch throughout the year, instead of once every 2 years with Mars exploration.

But science on the Moon has never been a priority for Congress, or for any Presidents after the Apollo program ended.

As it is, science on the Artemis program sure seems like a secondary goal squeezed within the goal of humans walking on the surface of the Moon, instead of an integrated effort.

For instance, NASA has the Artemis III Science Definition Team Report, and Section 2.1 The Artemis Science Plan lists seven objectives.

- The first five are focused on studying the history of the Moon, and the Sun.

- One focuses on "Conducting experimental science in the lunar environment".

- The last one is "Investigating and mitigating exploration risks to humans".

So except for the last one, all the rest could be done with robotic exploration systems, either as part of the Artemis program or separately. And none of those six would have an urgent political need.

Just an observation...

I believe there is an unspoken driver, Great Nation Competition. Kennedy was able to say this part out loud. With our current geopolitical situation, some may feel it's time once again for America to show what it can do.

There are several key differences between then and now, one of which is America will this time do the moon as part of a coalition- showing the world how nice it is to be part of Team USA. This is important as globalism unravels. Its also important to note that going as a team is more important than the cost or the time schedule.

[Coastal Ron]

...So except for the last one, all the rest could be done with robotic exploration systems, either as part of the Artemis program or separately. And none of those six would have an urgent political need.

Just an observation...

I believe there is an unspoken driver, Great Nation Competition. Kennedy was able to say this part out loud. With our current geopolitical situation, some may feel it's time once again for America to show what it can do.

When the Trump Administration created what we now call the Artemis program, there was no real competition for going to the Moon. And there still isn't. China talks about it for their long term plans, but they have a LOT of hardware they have to develop. So creating some sort of "race" to return to the Moon (and we already won the first Space Race) is not justification for returning to the Moon. There is nothing to win, and $Billions to lose.

There are several key differences between then and now, one of which is America will this time do the moon as part of a coalition- showing the world how nice it is to be part of Team USA. This is important as globalism unravels. Its also important to note that going as a team is more important than the cost or the time schedule.

The Artemis Accords came well after the Artemis program was created, and had more to do with ensuring the Artemis program was too well connected to be cancelled. They have nothing to do with promoting or supporting "globalism".

The return to the Moon was created to give a second consecutive term in office for Trump something to celebrate. That is where the 2024 date came from, not from some real or perceived "Space Race". Nothing happens if we don't return to the Moon by 2024, or 2028, or well into the 2030's.

In fact if SpaceX hadn't already been working on reaching Mars with their Starship program, returning to the Moon this decade using anyone else but SpaceX would have likely been impossible. And no one, including the Trump Administration, was counting on SpaceX to build a Moon lander when the 2024 date was announced in 2017 - the Starhopper was still more than a year away from its first tethered hop, and no one thought of it for landing on the Moon. Everyone thought American aerospace would be up to the challenge of building a Moon lander in less than 10 years, but I don't think that was a rational assumption... 

So Artemis is not needed for a Space Race, and not needed to show that America can have working relationships with other countries.

[VSECOTSPE]

- The first five are focused on studying the history of the Moon, and the Sun.

- One focuses on "Conducting experimental science in the lunar environment".

- The last one is "Investigating and mitigating exploration risks to humans".

So except for the last one, all the rest could be done with robotic exploration systems, either as part of the Artemis program or separately.

It depends.

Just retrieve samples of the lunar mantle?  A multi-hundred million dollar robotic mission can do that.  No multi-ten or -hundred billion dollar human program needed. 

Understand the gazillion-year stratigraphy of ice deposition at the lunar poles and its relationship to water transport and other processes at lower latitudes?  Yeah, that needs in-situ geologists.  (If and when Artemis will deliver one is another question.)

This is the problem.  The program doesn’t have customers or know what their concrete goals are, so it doesn’t know what its supposed to do.  It’s just focused on getting to the point where it can send four crew to the surface for a couple to few weeks annually and do something with that crew that appears useful.

And absent a substantive and ongoing discussion with real stakeholders about real goals, the program will just exist its own engineering echo chamber and continue down a path of least resistance instead of making hard choices and changes about what it really needs to get done.

I believe there is an unspoken driver, Great Nation Competition. Kennedy was able to say this part out loud. With our current geopolitical situation, some may feel it's time once again for America to show what it can do.

There are several key differences between then and now, one of which is America will this time do the moon as part of a coalition- showing the world how nice it is to be part of Team USA.

There’s nothing wrong with international competition as a driver.  But the biggest change between Apollo and Artemis is that the US has been to the Moon.  For that reason alone, international competition may not be a sustaining driver for Artemis.

Other aspects of competition this go-round are different, too.  Unlike the Soviets, the PRC has yet to set a human lunar goal.  If China falls into the middle-income trap, has fallout from its demographic problems, gets heavily sanctioned for sending arms to Russia, etc, they may not get there economically.  And just due to the ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine and China’s position on it, the rest of the spacefaring world has already pulled back from China, anyway:

https://spacenews.com/esa-is-no-longer-planning-to-send-astronauts-to-chinas-tiangong-space-station/

https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/02/heres-why-europe-is-abandoning-plans-to-fly-aboard-chinas-space-station/

In some respects, any human space flight competition with the PRC has been won just by offering an alternative to China.  Probably doesn’t even have to be lunar.

Although I’m sure there will be self-interested, parochial scaremongering among congress-critters in the near-term, for these reasons and others, I wouldn’t rely on a Sino Cold War repeat of Apollo to sustain Artemis over the long-term.

And even if there was a major competition with PRC in this arena, it doesn’t tell the program what to do after flags are planted again.  What is it — concretely and quantitively — that we’re going to do on the Moon for $8B+ a year and growing besides beat China back there?

[goretexguy]

- The first five are focused on studying the history of the Moon, and the Sun.

- One focuses on "Conducting experimental science in the lunar environment".

- The last one is "Investigating and mitigating exploration risks to humans".

So except for the last one, all the rest could be done with robotic exploration systems, either as part of the Artemis program or separately.

It depends.

Just retrieve samples of the lunar mantle?  A multi-hundred million dollar robotic mission can do that.  No multi-ten or -hundred billion dollar human program needed. 

Understand the gazillion-year stratigraphy of ice deposition at the lunar poles and its relationship to water transport and other processes at lower latitudes?  Yeah, that needs in-situ geologists.  (If and when Artemis will deliver one is another question.)

This is the problem.  The program doesn’t have customers or know what their concrete goals are, so it doesn’t know what its supposed to do.  It’s just focused on getting to the point where it can send four crew to the surface for a couple to few weeks annually and do something with that crew that appears useful.

And absent a substantive and ongoing discussion with real stakeholders about real goals, the program will just exist its own engineering echo chamber and continue down a path of least resistance instead of making hard choices and changes about what it really needs to get done.

I believe there is an unspoken driver, Great Nation Competition. Kennedy was able to say this part out loud. With our current geopolitical situation, some may feel it's time once again for America to show what it can do.

There are several key differences between then and now, one of which is America will this time do the moon as part of a coalition- showing the world how nice it is to be part of Team USA.

There’s nothing wrong with international competition as a driver.  But the biggest change between Apollo and Artemis is that the US has been to the Moon.  For that reason alone, international competition may not be a sustaining driver for Artemis.

Other aspects of competition this go-round are different, too.  Unlike the Soviets, the PRC has yet to set a human lunar goal.  If China falls into the middle-income trap, has fallout from its demographic problems, gets heavily sanctioned for sending arms to Russia, etc, they may not get there economically.  And just due to the ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine and China’s position on it, the rest of the spacefaring world has already pulled back from China, anyway:

https://spacenews.com/esa-is-no-longer-planning-to-send-astronauts-to-chinas-tiangong-space-station/

https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/02/heres-why-europe-is-abandoning-plans-to-fly-aboard-chinas-space-station/

In some respects, any human space flight competition with the PRC has been won just by offering an alternative to China.  Probably doesn’t even have to be lunar.

Although I’m sure there will be self-interested, parochial scaremongering among congress-critters in the near-term, for these reasons and others, I wouldn’t rely on a Sino Cold War repeat of Apollo to sustain Artemis over the long-term.

And even if there was a major competition with PRC in this arena, it doesn’t tell the program what to do after flags are planted again.  What is it — concretely and quantitively — that we’re going to do on the Moon for $8B+ a year and growing besides beat China back there?

I don't see SLS/Artemis as a race like Apollo was. The 'moon race' was meant to determine who would be the dominating force in the world. In the end, the United States was pre-eminent. Remember Kennedy's speech:

We set sail on this new sea because there is new knowledge to be gained, and new rights to be won, and they must be won and used for the progress of all people. For space science, like nuclear science and all technology, has no conscience of its own. Whether it will become a force for good or ill depends on man, and only if the United States occupies a position of pre-eminence can we help decide whether this new ocean will be a sea of peace or a new terrifying theater of war.

The world order has changed a bit, particularly with the fall of the Soviet Union and the Russia/Ukraine war leaving China as a rising power and competition to this pre-eminence.  While China may not pose an existential threat like the Soviet Union did, it is still a challenger in terms of international power and influence. China also understands very well the importance of soft power, and how accomplishments and monuments are an important part of soft power.

SLS/Artemis is meant to be a counter. This is why Congress is less concerned about cost and schedule than we wish it was. These programs are doing exactly what they need to do, and no more.

Look at the PR materials for Artemis I:

The first in a series of increasingly complex missions, Artemis I will provide a foundation for human deep space exploration and demonstrate our commitment and capability to extend human existence to the Moon and beyond prior to the first flight with crew on Artemis II.

Artemis I is foundational to the space economy, fueling new industries and technologies, supporting job growth, and furthering the demand for a highly skilled work force. Men and women in all fifty states are hard at work building the Deep Space Exploration Systems to support missions to deep space. NASA prime contractors, Aerojet Rocketdyne, Boeing, Jacobs, Lockheed Martin, and Northrop Grumman currently have over 3,200 suppliers contributing to the milestone achievement that heralds the success of America’s human spaceflight program.

https://www.nasa.gov/content/artemis-i-overview

The broad inclusion of foreign nations indicates the political goals of Artemis:
[img=500x263]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis_Accords#/media/File:ArtemisAccords-12-13-2022.png[/img]

So, while Congress does want us to eventually get to the moon (and maybe beyond), one of the goals is to get the rest of the world to follow the U.S. playbook.

A couple relevant links:
https://www.politico.eu/article/space-rules-us-france-germany-europe-moon/
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-54537906

Sorry everyone for the inclusion of politics. I wish it wasn't so.

[VSECOTSPE]

While China may not pose an existential threat like the Soviet Union did, it is still a challenger in terms of international power and influence.

Eh, in theory, not in practice.  Foreign space programs are withdrawing from China over its alignment with Russia.  ESA has pulled their astronauts from Tiangong.  It’s hard to see foreign programs joining a PRC lunar program, assuming China announces one.

Space policy either follows foreign policy or (like continued Russian participation in ISS) is largely irrelevant to it.  Space policy never drives foreign policy.  If China is on the outs with spacefaring powers over Ukraine, China’s civil human space flight program will be on the outs, no matter how challenging or attractive those programs might be to foreign civil human space flight programs.

SLS/Artemis is meant to be a counter.

The China competition rationale has been appended to these programs by Nelson and congress-critters recently, but that has more to do with the budget environment and lack of justification these programs are facing than any real competition from China in this arena.  I don’t think we’ll find China called out in the legislation that created Orion/SLS or in the White House policy that restored the human lunar goal.

To be clear, China definitely poses challenges to norms of behavior, substantive national security space sector threats, and maybe even emergent commercial space sector competition.  But in civil human space flight, the reality is that the PRC has no human lunar goal and just a small LEO station program that foreign programs never joined or are pulling out of.

PR materials...

Artemis I is foundational to the space economy, fueling new industries and technologies, supporting job growth,

To be clear about that PR spin, Artemis I didn’t do any of that.

and furthering the demand for a highly skilled work force. Men and women in all fifty states are hard at work building the Deep Space Exploration Systems to support missions to deep space. NASA prime contractors, Aerojet Rocketdyne, Boeing, Jacobs, Lockheed Martin, and Northrop Grumman currently have over 3,200 suppliers

Artemis I did do this.  But it has nothing to do with China.

PR is just that, press/public relations.  It’s not legislative justification or policy rationale.  I’d advise against confusing the two.

The broad inclusion of foreign nations indicates the political goals of Artemis

No doubt, cooperation with the same old foreign partners is a driver for Artemis.  But that would happen regardless of China.  It’s more about inertia from the ISS partnership than any grand foreign policy strategy.