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: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 09 2016, @06:34AM
Their goals get changed with each new administration and then add in budget micromanaging by congress. They need to be insulated from politics and given a stable meddle-free budget before they can accomplish anything great. http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/02/former-nasa-chief-on-us-space-policy-no-vision-no-plan-no-budget/ [arstechnica.com]