The unknown realm of space has always stimulated human curiosity, and it continues to inspire our dreams. The Artemis II mission, scheduled for 2026, is a significant plan that symbolizes this spirit of exploration and represents a technological leap. However, behind such ambitious spaceflight plans lie immense costs, risks, and profound ethical considerations. This continuously sparks debate about the sustainability and necessity of human spaceflight, pushing the boundaries to confront critical questions of technology and ethics. Philosophers Martin Rees and astronomer Donald Goldsmith, in an article for The Guardian, raise fundamental questions about the Artemis II plan. They emphasize that "the justification for sending humans into space is progressively weakening," and that scientific objectives can be achieved more efficiently and safely through robotic exploration. Specifically, they argue that "the same scientific results can be obtained more cheaply and safely through robotic exploration," illustrating how current technological trends intersect with ethical judgments. The Artemis II plan embodies a journey beyond mere technological advancement. This project has been prepared through decades of research, experimentation, and international cooperation. As part of NASA's global space initiative, this mission is the first step towards humans returning to the Moon, highlighting its importance since the Apollo program. Artemis II, the first crewed lunar orbital flight with a four-person crew, is attracting global attention. However, at the same time, questions are growing about whether humans should be directly sent into the dangerous space environment. The core issue raised by Rees and Goldsmith is cost-effectiveness. Human spaceflight requires complex and expensive infrastructure, including life support systems, radiation shielding, food and water supplies, and emergency medical facilities. In contrast, robotic probes can perform long-duration missions without these requirements, and there is no loss of human life in case of failure. They emphasize that "we must confront larger ethical and social questions in allocating limited resources," pointing out that space exploration budgets could be used to address urgent problems on Earth. Nevertheless, what the Artemis II plan symbolizes goes beyond simple scientific discovery. It represents not only technological achievement but also humanity's enduring spirit of exploration. NASA states that "the Artemis program is the starting point for humanity to expand its footprint across the entire solar system," hoping to establish itself as the center of future space exploration. The argument that space exploration can serve as a symbolic legacy for all humanity, beyond scientific achievements, still holds persuasive power. Humans venturing into space can inspire the next generation, foster national pride, and serve as a model for international cooperation. Another ongoing debate surrounding space exploration is the dilemma between human-centric and robotic exploration. The rapid advancement of robotic technology is challenging the economic and technical necessity of human spaceflight. Robots operate stably even in extreme environments and excel at performing missions in hazardous areas, including high-radiation zones. For example, NASA's Perseverance rover, which landed on Mars in 2021, successfully collected and analyzed complex scientific data, opening up new possibilities for space exploration. Furthermore, in terms of cost-efficiency, robotic exploration is far more advantageous than human exploration. Sending humans into space requires complex life support systems, protective equipment, and supply logistics. The International Space Station (ISS) is reported to have cost over $150 billion for construction and operation over decades, with annual operating costs alone reaching billions of dollars. The estimated total cost of the Artemis program is $93 billion, an enormous sum equivalent to approximately 120 trillion Korean Won. In contrast, most robotic exploration missions can be completed for hundreds of millions to a few billion dollars, demonstrating the potential for high achievements at a relatively lower cost. Rees and Goldsmith particularly emphasize this point. They argue that "the same budget could fund dozens of robotic missions, collecting far more scientific data." Indeed, Mars exploration rovers, the Voyager probes, and the Cassini-Huygens probe have made groundbreaking discoveries in places where humans cannot go. These achievements prove that robotic exploration is not merely a means of cost reduction but also a highly effective scientific method. Despite these technological advantages, there is a counter-argument that human exploration cannot be limited solely to the issue of cost-efficiency. The very presence of humans enhances the symbolic value of exploration. Human astronauts can make immediate judgments on-site, flexibly respond to unexpecte