Originally posted by randomname
i doesn't make much sense to use billions of dollars to build a vehicle to go back to a place that has been explored.
i would assume they have done every test imaginable to find precious minerals and natural resources to justify an expense back and found
nothing.
You're right that cost is an issue.
But to say the moon has been explored is a common myth that you can debunk yourself. The Earth is mostly water so the Earth and moon have somewhat
comparable land masses. So if you sent 6 teams of 2 people from another planet to the Earth, and they each spent 12 hours exploring the Earth, would
you then say the Earth had been explored?
Hardly. You'd have to admit it would be mostly unexplored.
But I'd rather see us go to Mars, but I'm not sure if we can do it safely. One of the reasons people cite the moon landings were faked is the
radiation. There actually was some radiation on the trip to the moon and back, and maybe some risk of a CME, but not enough to cause major problems,
though I think a lot of the astronauts got cataracts eventually, perhaps a side effect of radiation?
However there would be much more prolonged radiation exposure on a 6 month trip to Mars. You can get a chest X-ray and it won't hurt you but if they
turn on the x-ray machine and leave it on, it will become harmful. So ironically, while some people think radiation kept us from going to the moon (it
didn't), it may keep us from going to Mars for a while, or at least haven't seen a solution to the radiation problem yet. This would include the
Martian moons should we decide to go there first instead.
The problem may be solvable and we just haven't found the solution yet. Bit it would probably me more interesting to go to Mars or Phobos, than back
to the moon.