Just to add a point to "...with 200$ binoculars". Well, make it a telescope and 1000$ and it will do.
With my 8-inch telescope I can use magnifications up to 300x in good atmospheric conditions. You can treat the effect of "magnification" in two ways.
The primary understanding is of course: it makes the moon 300x bigger than with MK.1.
Or you can see it : it brings me 300x nearer to the moon, which makes out of 239.000mi a mere 796 miles.
I can use an eyepiece giving me 120 degrees field of view, truly panoramic. (OK that is another 1000$)
If the Artemis-II crew have no binoculars on board, I have a better resolution from my backyard. Of course I dont see the far side, but that's all whats left as a justification. LRO was mentioned? Good!
But we shall treat it what it is, a test and systems qualification flight, with now humans on board. The science starts when boots on moon. I really have no expectations here now. I think if NASA uses "science" in their
PR it is just out of bad habit (see self made
PR trap).
For Artemis-2 my doubts are only: one mission too early to be conducted with humans on board. And I would set one mission with humans on board in earth orbit for 10 days, with return capabilities within 90min of a severe problem set-on. And why in all hell with four astronauts? Even Boeing took just Butch and Suni on the Starliner inauguration flight and that turned out to be formidable decision. Space-X the same: Doug and Bob in the 4-seat Dragon.
that said, I do have a bit of trust towards Jared Isaacman !