[bambax]

> I get the point that the US already put people on the moon

I didn't mention the US and I'm not from the US (I'm French). Humanity landed on the moon. Over 50 years ago.

If a country today built a 1969 computer I wouldn't marvel at the achievement.

And yes, sure, there are probably many instruments on board. But you can tell from the video -- and all the excitement here as well -- that this is mainly political and politically motivated.

> If the US elects a president who is not interested in lunar science or has economic problems, then the whole world must wait for the US to decide to resume lunar missions?

Or maybe do something else with our limited time and ressources than trying again to analyze the lunar surface and pretend it will be useful? While planting friggin' flags all over the place?

[moopie]

You can use the “isn’t there anything better to do” towards literally anything

Why not this though

[bambax]

Okay, this is true, but the cost/benefit ratio is a way to evaluate "things to do". Landing on the moon is an immense effort that doesn't bring much.

I wouldn't care one way or the other but what gets me is we're sold this as a scientific pursuit, while it's obvious it's just nationalistic bombast.

[legends2k]

South pole is unexplored and no one has ever landed there, manned or unmanned. Exploring the unexplored isn't science?

[bambax]

The moon is NOT unexplored. That's my point actually. Should we explore every inch of it?

[dotnet00]

Of course we should? I'm surprised you think otherwise. It's like arguing that we shouldn't have explored the Americas because the Earth was not unexplored.

The Lunar poles have lots of scientific value, particularly for long term habitation, as you can have both permanently shadowed craters with water ice in them and permanently lit areas providing a reliable source of power.