There are multiple Artemis missions in the Artemis program. It looks like, if anything, we should have artemis-1, artemis-2, etc. Probably, best to just merge artemis-mission into artemis-program though, since it looks like it's been used for more than one mission.
What is on-topic here are question about spaceflight and the exploration of outer space by humans (even when done remotely through probes), with some leeway as to what exactly outer space is (the Karmán line is a good guideline). This also includes questions about the sun and the bodies in the solar system.
If you have such a question, ask away.
But if you ...
Questions that have nothing to do with spacecraft but are about planetary science, like understanding Mars as a planet, are on topic. We have also decided that rockets are on topic, even if they don't fly in to space. And I would even say space suits are likely considered on topic, for things like Alan Eustace's jump from 41 km high, although not for ...
Can a question be asked about space explorations without space craft?
Yes, but it depends what "space" means exactly.
The space in this site's title refers to the area that's above 100 km altitude. See Kármán line.
update: but as pointed out in the comments, that might not be crystal clear, so it's possible to understand the exploratory nature of ...
Regarding your claim
It creates the impression that the onus is on the OP to prove topicality, to any user who drops a "relevance?" comment. That's not now SE works.
The onus is on the OP to ask on-topic questions. That is how SE works. The OP is not required to pay any notice to comments, however comments are generally left to improve the ...
There are a couple of problems here:
No one is required to sacrifice their time to explain things to you. Of course, getting further information can be necessary, but it absolutely doesn't have to come from a specific person. When someone takes an action for a reason that is not clear, it can be difficult sometimes for others to fill in the gaps, but that's ...
This is a belated answer; the same topic just came up on the skeptics.SE meta.
If I want to link a paywalled paper as my source, can I post a direct link through sci-hub, or should I just leave the doi link, and let people seek access by themselves?
It's not an either-or question. For one thing, you can do both. For another, many authors post draft ...
That is a post notice on the question. Specifically, it is the "current event" notice, which is appended to a question when there have been recent developments in regards to the subject of the question that may have an impact on how accurate the initial answers may be. In other words, answers posted before information is gleaned from the new ...
I think I'd be ok with such a tag if it was rigorously defined in the tag excerpt, but keep in mind we have other related tags we would need to distinguish it from as well (see comments below). We actually did have such a tag just last week. I removed it because it had only two unrelated uses, where there were better tags available.
Rename columbia to shuttle-columbia, to allow space for a columbia-csm if needed.
Make ov-102 a synonym of shuttle-columbia.
Merge sts-107 into shuttle-columbia without synonymizing, just to get rid of the sts-107 tag. If we find that the tag keeps getting recreated, we can revisit making it a synonym.
I strongly disapprove of that because Columbia had a long and storied history. It should not be only known because of the accident.
There was also an Apollo command module named Columbia.
I hate it when people refer to the failures by the names of the Orbiters.
If you're going to make "columbia" = "sts-107" then we need "columbia-...
I could see us getting more questions on the Columbia orbiter. I think a merge/synonym of sts-107 into columbia would be a good idea, not because they are exactly equal, but because we don't need a separate tag for the subset of questions about specifically mission STS-107.