On Wed, 21 Jan 2009, Alan Erskine wrote:

I was more referring to the bit about budget responsibility than
science. I can't, for the life of me, work out why going back to the
Moon will be _more_ expensive than Apollo.... That's what NASA would
have us believe; and it's mainly due to using Ares 1 and V (as well as a
lander that is grossly over-sized for what it does - Altair) - perhaps
with the new administration, there will be a re-think on the whole mess.

It'll cost lots more because instead of picking up a few moon rocks,
US will be occupying the moon.

Riddle of the day. Which will cost US more?
Occupying the moon or occupying Iraq?