NASA seems hell bent to go to Mars, but can't afford to on its own.
Its international partners have no stomach for that — they would would rather return to our moon and build a base there for further exploration.
Doesn't going back to the moon make more sense? Build a base on the moon, and use its low gravity and possible water at the poles as propellant for further space exploration?
Why not the moon first?
http://www.theverge.com/2016/6/7/11868840/moon-return-journey-to-mars-nasa-congress-space-policy
Links:
From NASA itself, in 2008: https://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/series/moon/why_go_back.html
The all-knowing, ever-trustworthy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization_of_the_Moon
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 08 2016, @09:20AM
SpaceX will go wherever it wants, for fun and profit.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 08 2016, @09:28AM
SpaceX, the Uber of Space.
(Score: 2) by driverless on Wednesday June 08 2016, @07:37PM
Nahh, let's start even smaller, maybe a family vacation to Disneyland, or a rented Winnebago to Utah. Then we can aim for more ambitious stuff, maybe a weekend trip to Canadia, or over the wall to Mexico. Then bigger steps, watch the kangaroos in Austria or sit on a beach in Zntlszrkstan. After that, we can think about going to the moon again, after we commission a study to investigate planning a report to start a study on how to go about it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 08 2016, @08:17PM
> family vacation to Disneyland
cheaper to build a moonbase...
(Score: 2) by arslan on Wednesday June 08 2016, @10:43PM
Kangaroos in Austria? Do they look different than the ones here in Australia? Do they... yodel?
(Score: 2) by driverless on Thursday June 09 2016, @12:23AM
Reread the original post again...