As someone who trains the rocket engineers, I have to understand, and for me to provide value for value exchange to them, I need to get them to understand. As to the decisions regarding fuel technology, just because a fuel is lighter doesn't mean that it is the best decision.

Because it has a lower boiling point than nitrogen, doesn't freeze near absolute zero degrees.

It's rocket surgery. We're not supposed to understand. I did poke around on the NASA website to see if there were any tech details; found nothing. Do we know what trail of decisions led to the choice of fuel technology?

Why use valuable Helium to pressurize the fuel and oxidants, vs something easy like Nitrogen?

Cryogenic embrittlement is a surprisingly big problem. A part of my job is to make sure the engineers know what all the potential rocketry issues could be ... and to troubleshoot proactively.

Liquid helium and liquid hydrogen are much colder than liquefied methane that SpaceX uses. Is it any wonder that SpaceX is more reliable?

If a comparison were made of the IQ of NASA engineers on this program vs the engineers on
the Apollo program, would the DEI of NASA's Artemis program be exposed as deficient?
And what would the contract awards on the Artemis program show ?

Better to catch these problems before launch even if it is disappointing.

Interesting line in the article: "Artemis 2 will send three NASA astronauts and one Canadian on a roughly 10-day trip around the moon and back to Earth in a Orion capsule." /s The terms America or Americans isn't mentioned once in the article so exactly who are those "NASA astronauts"?