Mars and Asteroids are a waste of time

[DarkenedOne]

While I knew that the Constellation infrastructure was unsustainable from the beginning I definitely agreed with the destination.

I am absolutely convince that the Moon is the next great step for humanity in space. It holds the solution to what is probably the most difficult and expensive aspect of all space activities and that is getting into space. Fact is that getting into space is expensive. It costs about $10,000 per kg in order to get into LEO. GTO costs about 2-3 times that. Escaping Earth's orbit completely costs even more than that. While the price might be reduced by advanced technology such as reusable launch vehicles I highly doubt that the price will come down by the several factors of ten needed to make us a real space faring race. The problem is simply that we live in a gravity well. It takes enormous amounts of thrust and energy to escape. Would it not be great if we could launch our space craft from outside the gravity well.

A base of operations outside of the gravity well is just what the moon offers. We know now that the Moon has all types of useful resources. It has water for both drinking, growing plants, and making fuel. It has oxygen for human consumption and fuel. It has iron, aluminium, and titanium for building and spacecraft. It even has silicon for electronics. There is also evidence that it has carbon, however we have yet to figure out how much. With all of these resources a moon base can potentially be sulf-sustaining and thus even cheaper to maintain then the ISS. Gathering and using these resources would lower the cost of not just Moon operations, but all operations in space.

The reason is that the laws of orbital mechanics benefit launching from the moon for all destinations in space. Assuming aerobraking is utilized it takes 17.5 times less energy and 1/6 the trust for a spacecraft to travel from the lunar surface to LEO than it does to go from Earth's surface. It takes something like 26.3 times less energy to get to GTO from the lunar surface than the Earth's surface. It takes something like 29 times less energy to go to a destination like Mars.

Honestly what do we get out of going to an asteroid or flying around Mars. Nothing. Who cares? Your not going to settle an asteroid, and doing anything meaningful on Mars will be too expensive. On the other hand the moon can offer us much cheaper access to all of space. At the same time it brings us one giant leap closer to being a real space fairing, not space visiting civilization. People always settle areas with usable resources. Personally I believe that whoever controls the moon will be the military and economic superpower of space. By utilizing the moons vast resources they will be able to field larger at a cheaper cost than any Earth nation will be able to. They will have the ultimate high ground.

 

[Gravity_Ray]

I agree.

By the way, I am going to go on a limb and say its going to be Mr. Bigelow that will have a Moon base first before anybody else.

Yep, color me crazy.

 

[bdewoody]

I'm glad to see someone else is posting on this subject. I have been saying since I first found SDC that the Moon should be our next space station. Like you pointed out it has most if not all of the raw ingredients to support a sizeable population. Plus it has gravity. If we can't live on the moon then we probably can't make it on Mars either. The big difference though is that the moon is only a few days away and communications are almost instantaneous whereas the asteroids or Mars are months away and communication times vary depending on orbital position.

Once we have established ourselves on the moon and started manufacturing components for space ships there the rest of the solar system will be easy to reach. There are still technical problems to solve but no more than those presented by going to Mars or an asteroid. If we ever do need a way to deflect an incoming asteroid or comet the moon is the logical place to defend earth from.

 

[JonClarke]

doing anything meaningful on Mars will be too expensive.

Why?

 

[rockett]

doing anything meaningful on Mars will be too expensive.

Why?

If we can't afford to establish a lunar base, we can't afford Mars OR asteroids.

I also agree with previous posts that the lunar resources would be priceless in supporting future efforts! In a practical sense, the environments are not that different.

 

[nimbus]

Phobos before Mars, that's the plan. All the teleoperation and life systems there ought to apply on the Moon. Plus, you're setting a more attractive and inspiring goal than the Moon. Which, regardless of how it might seem to those of us who are already space nuts, is an "already done" destination; as far as kids are concerned..
Plus (and this is a small plus but it's not yet disregardable) there may be life on Mars.

 

[DarkenedOne]

Phobos before Mars, that's the plan. All the teleoperation and life systems there ought to apply on the Moon. Plus, you're setting a more attractive and inspiring goal than the Moon. Which, regardless of how it might seem to those of us who are already space nuts, is an "already done" destination; as far as kids are concerned..
Plus (and this is a small plus but it's not yet disregardable) there may be life on Mars.

First of all Phobos has many of the same cost issues that Mars has. It requires enormous ships with advanced propulsion and a huge supply of consumables to keep the astronauts alive for the 1 year round trip. With a round trip time of only 10 days missions to the moon on the other hand could be done with far less supplies and employ far less massive spacecraft.

Secondly I disagree with Phobos being more attractive and inspiring. As far as the moon goes we know that it has extensive reserves of the materials we need. Phobos we know practically nothing about. It is way to far away to be used as a launching Earth satellites. It is way to far away for any potential military use. It is way to far away to be used for space tourism. Honestly how many people even know about it.

Any settlement or outpost we construct must be close enough to be useful to Earth in order to justify the investment. The moon being only 5 days away is close enough to provide enormous benefits to the Earth both militarily and economically.

 

[rockett]

First of all Phobos has many of the same cost issues that Mars has. It requires enormous ships with advanced propulsion and a huge supply of consumables to keep the astronauts alive for the 1 year round trip. With a round trip time of only 10 days missions to the moon on the other hand could be done with far less supplies and employ far less massive spacecraft.

Secondly I disagree with Phobos being more attractive and inspiring. As far as the moon goes we know that it has extensive reserves of the materials we need. Phobos we know practically nothing about. It is way to far away to be used as a launching Earth satellites. It is way to far away for any potential military use. It is way to far away to be used for space tourism. Honestly how many people even know about it.

Any settlement or outpost we construct must be close enough to be useful to Earth in order to justify the investment. The moon being only 5 days away is close enough to provide enormous benefits to the Earth both militarily and economically.

I agree. Phobos has a very high HO-HUM factor compared to either the moon or Mars. Besides, if you go that far in the first place, the thinking will be "You spent WHAT! And you didn't EVEN LAND!".

The reality is, Phobos is a straw-man, nothing more than a misdirection so that the Obama Administration can avoid doing anything at all. If you look at the timelines of their proposals, that much is obvious...

 

[kelvinzero]

This thread title is a little bit inflammatory isn't it?

I am very enthusiastic about the moon, although I would be perfectly happy with a teleoperated robotic colony for now. That talk of Asteroids and Mars is well outside Obama's time in office so I pretty much ignore it.

I think there might be a lunar robotic precursor mission in the budget, and Im pretty sure the commercial lunar lander work is there, as well as a lot more money for ISRU research. I would like to see this formalized as a goal though. I call it COLTS: Commercial Orbital/Lunar Transportation Services

 

[nimbus]

Given the circumstances, talk of what the goal is for the next decade or two isn't something to be ignored. If anything's come out from all the recent debate, it's that the foundations need to be laid down now and be laid down right.

 

[rockett]

This thread title is a little bit inflammatory isn't it?

:lol: Indeed it is. But useful in that it sparked some lively debate. Thanks DarkenedOne...

 

[DarkenedOne]

This thread title is a little bit inflammatory isn't it?

I am very enthusiastic about the moon, although I would be perfectly happy with a teleoperated robotic colony for now. That talk of Asteroids and Mars is well outside Obama's time in office so I pretty much ignore it.

I think there might be a lunar robotic precursor mission in the budget, and Im pretty sure the commercial lunar lander work is there, as well as a lot more money for ISRU research. I would like to see this formalized as a goal though. I call it COLTS: Commercial Orbital/Lunar Transportation Services

I agree that robots should conduct many of the initial operations. We have already used satellites to map the entire surface to within one meter. The next step is to use rovers to scout for the best and most accessible deposits of materials. After that we need to build a robotic lunar excavator and a small water processing plant both nuclear powered. All this can be launch economically by existing commercial rockets.

Thing is that if we can establish a source of water on the moon than amount of material that needs to be shipped drops dramatically. Water can be used for drinking, for breathing and for fuel. The only remaining requirement to sustain human life is food.

 

[rockett]

Looks like they are going to do it anyway.

Reshaped spaceflight plan gains support
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37007306/ns/technology_and_science-space/

LUNAR exploration not even discussed.

 

[Booban]

With all of these resources a moon base can potentially be sulf-sustaining and thus even cheaper to maintain then the ISS. Gathering and using these resources would lower the cost of not just Moon operations, but all operations in space.

You are right about a 'base' on the moon or a base anywhere when it comes to sustained space operations with missions flying everywhere all the time. But we are still exploring, still doing one-off missions. Putting on those facilities for processing and manufacturing on the moon for human expeditions once in a decade is not efficient and will cost more. The moon 'base' will cost so much money it will be the mission itself and not a launch pad to anywhere.

Honestly what do we get out of going to an asteroid or flying around Mars. Nothing. Who cares? Your not going to settle an asteroid, and doing anything meaningful on Mars will be too expensive. On the other hand the moon can offer us much cheaper access to all of space.

Whats the point of much cheaper access to all of space when you yourself point out that we get nothing out of it? Not an asteroid, not Mars, so where are you going after your moon base?

For one moon base how many martian rovers can we build? How many probes and rovers can we send to every planet, moon and asteroid in the solar system to find out just where we want to go and what to do?

Lets first figure out what we want to do in space first, and if a moon base fits part of the plan, then do it. Anything else is cart before the donkey!

 

[nimbus]

First of all Phobos has many of the same cost issues that Mars has.

Where can I read about these excessive issues?

It requires enormous ships with advanced propulsion and a huge supply of consumables to keep the astronauts alive for the 1 year round trip.

Source ?

With a round trip time of only 10 days missions to the moon on the other hand could be done with far less supplies and employ far less massive spacecraft.

Yes but how do you argue that this outweighs Phobos/Mars orbit to the point of the latter being less worthy a target?

Secondly I disagree with Phobos being more attractive and inspiring.

That's all opinion. Moon was already done. Mars orbit has never been done, it's further meaning more prestige, it would mean new and therefore more impressive tech, it probably also means way more science returns than the Moon but that's just a wild guess - there may be enough science in reserve on the Moon to make it moot. But going to Mars is more inspiring, period. It's not even that a kid can look up into the sky any day or night and think that there's men up there, but that a tiny shining orange dot in the sky way further out has men there.

As far as the moon goes we know that it has extensive reserves of the materials we need. Phobos we know practically nothing about.

Absence of evidence doesn't prove absence.

It is way to far away to be used as a launching Earth satellites. It is way to far away for any potential military use. It is way to far away to be used for space tourism. Honestly how many people even know about it.

Moon is near enough and tech/industry has grown enough that both Moon and Mars are viable candidates. If only one can be chosen, you might as well choose the most daring one.
Bold: Honestly how many people don't know about Mars? Get to Phobos and Mars probably follows. There's good odds private efforts like Bigelow will be going to the Moon around the same time. NASA's supposed to pioneer, not linger in its own wake. The only argument I'd make against Mars is if NASA came up with a plan guaranteeing multiple times the payback (e.g. permanent station) on the Moon, compared to Mars.

Any settlement or outpost we construct must be close enough to be useful to Earth in order to justify the investment.

Why? What's "close enough to be useful" and why's Mars excluded from this criteria?

The moon being only 5 days away is close enough to provide enormous benefits to the Earth both militarily and economically.

[/quote]Like?

Lets first figure out what we want to do in space first, and if a moon base fits part of the plan, then do it. Anything else is cart before the donkey!

Affordable space access before anything else. Though NASA can't exactly be counted on to guarantee that.

 

[Booban]

Looks like they are going to do it anyway.

Reshaped spaceflight plan gains support
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37007306/ns/technology_and_science-space/

LUNAR exploration not even discussed.

Well, they did mention a moon fly by.

I kinda liked the article. Only that this is manned exploration when I don't think we've exhausted robotic exploration yet. We don't really need fancy ships and faster propulsion if its just robots. Since it takes time to develop though, I guess you have to plan it now while in the mean time continue to explore with robots.

 

[DarkenedOne]

With all of these resources a moon base can potentially be sulf-sustaining and thus even cheaper to maintain then the ISS. Gathering and using these resources would lower the cost of not just Moon operations, but all operations in space.

You are right about a 'base' on the moon or a base anywhere when it comes to sustained space operations with missions flying everywhere all the time. But we are still exploring, still doing one-off missions. Putting on those facilities for processing and manufacturing on the moon for human expeditions once in a decade is not efficient and will cost more. The moon 'base' will cost so much money it will be the mission itself and not a launch pad to anywhere.

First of all we are currently running about 3-4 manned missions to the ISS per year. Most likely if we establish a lunar base with such an infrastructure it is likely have an equal number of missions. However this is ignoring the most important point about ISRU on the moon. Developing a lunar ISRU infrastructure is not just about making moon missions cheaper, but all space operations cheaper. The physics of orbital mechanics holds that it takes many times less energy and thrust in order to launch from the lunar surface.

Honestly what do we get out of going to an asteroid or flying around Mars. Nothing. Who cares? Your not going to settle an asteroid, and doing anything meaningful on Mars will be too expensive. On the other hand the moon can offer us much cheaper access to all of space.

Whats the point of much cheaper access to all of space when you yourself point out that we get nothing out of it? Not an asteroid, not Mars, so where are you going after your moon base?

For one moon base how many martian rovers can we build? How many probes and rovers can we send to every planet, moon and asteroid in the solar system to find out just where we want to go and what to do?

Lets first figure out what we want to do in space first, and if a moon base fits part of the plan, then do it. Anything else is cart before the donkey!

When I stated that these places were worthless I was analyzing it from a near term economic and military point of view. That is not to say that these destinations do not have significant scientific value. They may also have economic value in the future if accessing these destinations can be made significantly cheaper.

However that is strictly for deep space operations. Like I said the moon is a better base of operations for all space operations not just manned expeditions to outer space. That includes the thousands of satellites that we send up for everything from GPS to telecommunications to space observatories to Earth observation.

So the applications for a moon base already exist.

 

[nimbus]

Just two questions -
Why is military a significant weight? I've never seen this argued anywhere.
How is the Moon the best starting point for system exploration?

 

[HopDavid]

While I knew that the Constellation infrastructure was unsustainable from the beginning I definitely agreed with the destination.

I am absolutely convince that the Moon is the next great step for humanity in space. It holds the solution to what is probably the most difficult and expensive aspect of all space activities and that is getting into space. Fact is that getting into space is expensive. It costs about $10,000 per kg in order to get into LEO. GTO costs about 2-3 times that. Escaping Earth's orbit completely costs even more than that. While the price might be reduced by advanced technology such as reusable launch vehicles I highly doubt that the price will come down by the several factors of ten needed to make us a real space faring race. The problem is simply that we live in a gravity well. It takes enormous amounts of thrust and energy to escape. Would it not be great if we could launch our space craft from outside the gravity well.

A base of operations outside of the gravity well is just what the moon offers. We know now that the Moon has all types of useful resources. It has water for both drinking, growing plants, and making fuel. It has oxygen for human consumption and fuel. It has iron, aluminium, and titanium for building and spacecraft. It even has silicon for electronics. There is also evidence that it has carbon, however we have yet to figure out how much. With all of these resources a moon base can potentially be sulf-sustaining and thus even cheaper to maintain then the ISS. Gathering and using these resources would lower the cost of not just Moon operations, but all operations in space.

The reason is that the laws of orbital mechanics benefit launching from the moon for all destinations in space. Assuming aerobraking is utilized it takes 17.5 times less energy and 1/6 the trust for a spacecraft to travel from the lunar surface to LEO than it does to go from Earth's surface. It takes something like 26.3 times less energy to get to GTO from the lunar surface than the Earth's surface. It takes something like 29 times less energy to go to a destination like Mars.

Honestly what do we get out of going to an asteroid or flying around Mars. Nothing. Who cares? Your not going to settle an asteroid, and doing anything meaningful on Mars will be too expensive. On the other hand the moon can offer us much cheaper access to all of space. At the same time it brings us one giant leap closer to being a real space fairing, not space visiting civilization. People always settle areas with usable resources. Personally I believe that whoever controls the moon will be the military and economic superpower of space. By utilizing the moons vast resources they will be able to field larger at a cheaper cost than any Earth nation will be able to. They will have the ultimate high ground.

I agree that the moon should be first. I see an EML1 propellent depot supplied with lunar oxygen as a Golden Spike in our future space transportation infrastructure.

However, I see asteroids Phobos and Deimos as the next destinations after the moon. The moon has plentiful oxidizer, the major mass component of typical propellent. But Luna is hydrogen poor.

Yes, Luna has water at the poles. But I wouldn't want this consumed as a propellent commodity. Maybe using it in initial lunar development efforts, but not in perpetuity. The poles and ice deposits are of great scientific interest, in my opinion.

It is possible Phobos, Deimos and some NEOs can provide the fuel component of propellent to complement lunar oxidizer. The Martian moons as well as many NEOs are quite close to EML1 in terms of delta V.

In my book Phobos has high priority, second only to Luna.

 

[DarkenedOne]

First of all Phobos has many of the same cost issues that Mars has.

Where can I read about these excessive issues?

I believe that lowest cost for going to Mars is quoted in the Mars Direct Plan, which is estimated to cost $55 billion per mission.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Direct

It requires enormous ships with advanced propulsion and a huge supply of consumables to keep the astronauts alive for the 1 year round trip.

Source ?

All of these facts can be logically derived from the simple fact that a round trip to Mars is a year long journey. By comparison the trip to the moon is at most 10 year round trip. The human body requires a certain amount of consumables including air, water, and food per day as we all know. Therefore we know that a Mars trip will require 36.5 times as much consumables for a Mars trip. Since these consumables take up both volume and mass we can then logically derive that a spacecraft needed for a manned Mars journey must be bigger in order to carry the extra weight and space.

With a round trip time of only 10 days missions to the moon on the other hand could be done with far less supplies and employ far less massive spacecraft.

Yes but how do you argue that this outweighs Phobos/Mars orbit to the point of the latter being less worthy a target?

Well considering that NASA does have a limited budget I would think that moon mission are more achievable than Mars or Phobos missions. However the distance is just one argument in favor of the moon.

Secondly I disagree with Phobos being more attractive and inspiring.

That's all opinion. Moon was already done. Mars orbit has never been done, it's further meaning more prestige, it would mean new and therefore more impressive tech, it probably also means way more science returns than the Moon but that's just a wild guess - there may be enough science in reserve on the Moon to make it moot. But going to Mars is more inspiring, period. It's not even that a kid can look up into the sky any day or night and think that there's men up there, but that a tiny shining orange dot in the sky way further out has men there.

First of all the argument that the been there done that argument is the worst argument for not going back to the moon I have ever heard. What if Spain decided to not to even come back to the new world because it was done before. The goal of the manned space program a bit more grand than putting flags and footprints on other objects in space.

Secondly I admit that the moon is not the most scientifically interesting destination. However being able to access and utilize the moons resources will greatly benefit science by making missions to outer space much more feasible. As far as technology goes I guarantee you there is a great deal more new and impressive tech in establishing a moon base and ISRU than there is in putting manned spacecraft into orbit around Mars.

Lastly the idea of a manned mission to orbit Mars is perhaps the greatest example of sending a manned crew to do what a unmanned spacecraft has already done better and cheaper. We already have the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter in orbit around Mars right now. It only cost $720 million and has remained in orbit around Mars sending us images of the Mars surface for the last few years.

Spending tens if not hundreds of billions of dollars for the prestige is ridiculous. We need to start thinking like the Europeans did when they came across the new world and pursue real economic objectives.

As far as the moon goes we know that it has extensive reserves of the materials we need. Phobos we know practically nothing about.

Absence of evidence doesn't prove absence.

If someone told you there was a gold mine in your back yard would you pass that up for the possibility of having one hundred of miles away? Even if Phobos has tones of resources they are just to far away to serve Earth.

It is way to far away to be used as a launching Earth satellites. It is way to far away for any potential military use. It is way to far away to be used for space tourism. Honestly how many people even know about it.

Moon is near enough and tech/industry has grown enough that both Moon and Mars are viable candidates. If only one can be chosen, you might as well choose the most daring one.
Bold: Honestly how many people don't know about Mars? Get to Phobos and Mars probably follows. There's good odds private efforts like Bigelow will be going to the Moon around the same time. NASA's supposed to pioneer, not linger in its own wake. The only argument I'd make against Mars is if NASA came up with a plan guaranteeing multiple times the payback (e.g. permanent station) on the Moon, compared to Mars.

What is the goal of the space program? Is it to perform meaningless spectacles for show or is it about the expansion of humanity into space.

The moon is the best destination for our current space budget.

Any settlement or outpost we construct must be close enough to be useful to Earth in order to justify the investment.

Why? What's "close enough to be useful" and why's Mars excluded from this criteria?

Close enough to be useful as in close enough to be useful for commercial satellites operators, the military, and space tourism to make use of. At over 6 months away commercial satellite operators will probably not want to have to wait that long for a satellite delivery. The military which has been search for more responsive access to space will definitely not wait that long. Also how many people would be willing to spend a year of their life stuck on a spacecraft for space tourism.

The moon being only 5 days away is close enough to provide enormous benefits to the Earth both militarily and economically.

Like?

Economically you are able to produce satellites for far cheaper cost.

Lets first figure out what we want to do in space first, and if a moon base fits part of the plan, then do it. Anything else is cart before the donkey!

Affordable space access before anything else. Though NASA can't exactly be counted on to guarantee that.

 

[Booban]

Space is affordable for what we are doing right now.

Sending probes out once in a while to find out the composition of planetary bodies does not require a whole manufacturing or processing infrastructure in space. No matter how expensive it is launching things from earth it would still be cheaper than developing the whole range of technology for creating and maintaining any space base until economy of scale is realized.

By the time we have any reason for space depots and mining and manufacturing on the moon, well, then we are already 'there' and the future of mankind in space is secure.

 

[SpacexULA]

NASA's budget is 17 Billion, and at 17 Billion Moon, Mars, and Asteroids are ALL pipe dreams. Even increasing the budget by 10% a year, which would be unprecedented (and likely unsustainable), NASA will not have the funds to develop JUST A CAPSULE till the late 2010s.

The only way NASA get's a serious budget is if they present the danger that space can present to humanity, then they will get the funding they need.

There is only 1 pressing issue from space, and that is asteroid impacts. That is the ONLY reason to hurry, because it' the only concrete reason that space presents a clear danger to humanity. Before we spend billions and billions of money on developing equipment to allow us to have an Antarctic base in the deserts of the Moon or Mars, maybe we should actually know what bullets are floating around ready to unleash the equivalent of a small nuclear weapon on a random location in the world.

If you don't want to "wait time", maybe we should do the following:

-Observatories at the l2 position of all the inner planets
-Joint NASA/DOD EELV2 program to again drop the costs and increase the affordability of the EELV fleet.
-Develop a full system for tracking, and projecting the path of every object larger that 100 Meters across in the inner solar system.
-NEO mission to better understand how to destroy an asteroid, or redirect it's orbit.
-Test program to alter the orbit/destroy an asteroid.

This is the space program that can save lives. I really don't want to go the way of the Dinosaurs because we went the inspirational path instead of the practical path.

 

[Valcan]

Space is affordable for what we are doing right now.

Sending probes out once in a while to find out the composition of planetary bodies does not require a whole manufacturing or processing infrastructure in space. No matter how expensive it is launching things from earth it would still be cheaper than developing the whole range of technology for creating and maintaining any space base until economy of scale is realized.

By the time we have any reason for space depots and mining and manufacturing on the moon, well, then we are already 'there' and the future of mankind in space is secure.

Your news May 9, 2191

Vienna, The Resource Allocation and Distrobution Agency (RADA) ruled a controvesial plan to build a space infestructure citing lack of resources and needs of the ever increasing Global Social Security initiative which has exceeded its proposed budget by over 400%.

One Board member said "such a plan is doomed to failure because of the severe and deadly radiation storms that constantly blanket the earth. This isnt the nineteen hundreds or early twintieth century anymore we simply cant do that. It would be wiser to continue to get more intouch with the land and our ancestors ways with nature."

One block to the proposed space resource allocation bill was that it took funding away from rural farm initative and from many population control centers. Many, like Mike Mullchester of Iowa however, say its just another way for the Board to wrest control from soverin nations and to instigate a new type of Neo feudalism threw withholding materials to populations.

Next up Gerbals fuzzy loveable pet or ecological assasins.

Booban never underestimate the stupidity or corruption of politicans.

 

[bdewoody]

Why do people say the moon has been done? Six little visits did collect some valuable data but the science we can do on the moon has hardly been touched. As with the analogy of another poster it would be like Columbus going back to Spain after spending a day in the new world and then saying "been there done that"

 

[SpacexULA]

Why do people say the moon has been done? Six little visits did collect some valuable data but the science we can do on the moon has hardly been touched. As with the analogy of another poster it would be like Columbus going back to Spain after spending a day in the new world and then saying "been there done that"

For me the "been there done that" of Apollo is using an HLV with no commercial market, that would require a 2 fold increase in NASA's budget to support, that only launches 2-3 times a year, with a huge staff requirement, to go somewhere that there can be no commercial market for, to get research that could be done cheaper with robots, for a citizenry that tends to get distracted after the 2nd landing.

If it was about the science we would send robots till no more research can be done with robots, which is a point we are NOWHERE NEAR.