[ramblenode]

Your example does not support your argument. Unlike heart surgery, there hasn't been a major shift in what we could do if we went back, and more exploration probably won't change the commercial or military prospects of the moon.

[elzbardico]

No.

Of course, there is a giant shift in what we could do. We can build far more reliable rockets. We have incredible progresses in materials science, in our understanding of the moon's geology. Likewise, we established the presence of water.

We have more advanced solar panels, better batteries, we have a lot of recent research on modular, safe nuclear reactors that could probably lead more easily to moon-ready reactors. We have better batteries. Not only that, but we have better high power semiconductor gear that could lead to high orbit solar power stations over the poles feeding a polar base via microwaves.

We have decades of accumulated knowledge of human physiology under zero gravity.

We are way more prepared to have a permanent presence on the moon today that we could possibly have in the 70s because of those advancements.

Yes, taking Space-X out of it is stupid. SLS is a joke. Boeing idem. On this part of the problem people have my complete agreement. But the moon is a worthwhile goal because we cannot turn our backs to space.

[troyvit]

I agree that we have all those things, but what do we do with them? What's the end benefit?

I'm not asking rhetorically, and if the answer is that the knock-off effects of doing this will provide a ton of technology that will help the rest of Earth eat, live and pursue happiness then I think that's a pretty kick-ass answer. But is that where you were going?

[elzbardico]

For one, ensure that in the coming decades we can defend our planet more efficiently from space threats.

[ramblenode]

So what would the actual mission be if we went back, taking into account all these advances? Gather more rocks? Build a permanent base to... gather more rocks?

I love space exploration too, but its expensive, and we should focus on areas that have the best scientific or economic payoff. Sending humans back to the moon just isn't the best use of resources.

[JumpCrisscross]

> more exploration probably won't change the commercial or military prospects of the moon

What are you basing this on?

[hackernewds]

burden of truth is on you. not them

[HaZeust]

ramblenode made the starting claim - what?