Man on the Moon: Been There, Done That?

Has Man really seen all there is to see, and learned all there is to learn, from the Apollo missions to the Moon?

http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/Cool-A ... that-world

I wouldn't use the adjective "wetter" to describe the moon, but the article has a valid point. However, with our current economy, expensive public Moon and Mars missions just aren't in the cards.

A government's job is to provide for the defense and interests of it citizens. That currently does not include much for manned space flights in the name of science and curiosity. Universities and private industry are going to have to step up, find valid reasons (the darkside telescope is one), and then gather the resources if beyond LEO space exploitation is going to happen.

There are 2 ways we'll increase manned spaceflight/exploration:

1 - [Insert country here] Lands on the Moon or Mars. (Americans won't be 1-upped)
2 - Some entity (government, private company, etc.) finds a way to make money in space.

Look, we don't even know 100% about EARTH. How many times in the past decade have you read this headline (or something like it)

New satellite discovers X that makes nearly everything we thought about Y Planet/Moon completely wrong!

I'm talking about our Moon, and planets close to us. We know almost nothing about any other planetary body. For decades we all KNEW the moon was completely void of anything useful and not worth exploring.

Oops. I guess the experts were wrong. Helium 3, Water, and who knows what else. Not even going to mention the really interesting features like skylights, etc. So this dead moon isn't what we thought. We need to explore it. ALL of it.

Mars - no one knows why methane is suddenly being produced at a higher level. Again - for decades Mars is this dead, worthless planet that barely merits exploration. These were all well respected and confirmed observations from the smartest people on the planet.

Reality: We have no idea what our moon and Mars holds in store, even after 50+ years of probes and exploration. We won't be back to find out what is in store until we somehow find out there is money in it or get scared some communist country is about to set up a base on it.

The argument "been there, done that" is flawed by default.

If this argument was valid, then why are we still going to LEO? Why are we sending astronauts to Earth orbit, when we have been there hundreds of times? Moreover, scientists like Bob Park are constantly bashing the station and the shuttle because, they say, it has proved to be of little science value. Yet, we continue to send people to Earth orbit. We continue conducting scientific experiments aboard - like Kristallizator, like Bioemulsia, like Polygen, like Rastenia, like Biorisk, like - Expose-R. And we have been doing this for 50 years. Why? We've been there, done that.

If this argument was valid, then why are we still sending rovers to Mars? We did it three times - with Spirit, Oppy, Pathfinder. We know Mars much better. Then why building another rover - MSL ? We've been there, done that.

The Moon is interesting. We still send orbiters there - and we learn a lot of things. We found water. We found that the Moon is shrinking. We found dark pits and bridges. We're still trying to unlock the secrets of Tsiolkovsky. We still don't know the early evolution of the Earth - and the answer is there, on the Moon.

So we have to forget the flawed argument "been there' done that"

I think we need to go back and start a colony for the purpose of survival of our species. I think we should expand our horizons.

The ISS exists for the same reason we have multiple bases in Antarctica, i.e. purely geopolitical reasons, with flimsy science justifications on top.

I think for humanity's future survival, we need a lunar as well as a planetary colony. So I say we practice on the moon. We can then mine the surface of Mars and build ships and buildings!!!

More like a good idea that got hijacked by compromise and politics.