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: 1) by OrugTor on Wednesday June 08 2016, @01:12PM
We can debate moon and Mars until the cows come home but what difference in the end? I take a long term view. We are going to the stars. There will be many mis-steps along the way - the Mars failure of 2033, the Europa catastrophe, the Belt mining disaster, the Alpha Centauri lost expedition. No matter, we will keep trying. We may withdraw for a few decades or even centuries but the only thing that can stop us is extinction.
So my vote goes for Europa.
And we need more Musks.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 09 2016, @09:15AM
per aspera ad astra.