In article ,
says...

Several comments yesterday afternoon by astronauts seems to suggest to me
that they want to go back to the moon, not an asteroid. I guess the topic
came up due to the moon being very visible so i understand during the space
walk, but the comments did seem to be unquestioned and maybe un noticed,
but I heard them.

It's visible, but I'd argue that we've "been there, done that". Note
how coverage of the lunar missions peaked with Apollo 11 then tapered
off until the O2 tank blew on Apollo 13.

Exploring an asteroid that's *far* away from earth, as opposed to the
moon which is *in our backyard* would be far more interesting, IMHO.

In a lot of ways, a smallish asteroid is far easier to explore than the
moon since you don't need much of a lander, due to the very low delta-V
required to "land" and "takeoff". If the asteroid is small enough, you
don't need a lander at all. You can just "land" your
Orion/hab/propulsion stack right on the thing.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer