Yeah, sorry, I’m a stodgy old engineer. The middle of a flight is not the time for waxing poetic.
John D., the orbiting station you prefer would still have most of the same problems as a moon base, except for the “gravity well” issue. The station would still be operating in a vacuum, which exposes it to the same leak issues as on the surface. All supplies, including oxygen, food and water would have to be ferried up from earth. In space, the astronauts are exposed to solar radiation that could be mitigated by proper shelters on the surface. One reason for the base being located at the poles is the presence of water that could be used to possibly grow crops in proper conditions (eg. hydroponics) as well as making breathable air and hydrogen fuel for return rocket trips. Mining is not the main purpose of such a mission. Besides, with 1/6 of earth gravity, industrial machines would not need to be as massive as on earth. The main purpose of a moon base is to figure out how people will live and be self-sufficient for extended periods in a hostile environment, which is essential for any future deep-space missions to other planets. As someone else said, looking at pictures is fine, but sooner or later, people will want to go see for themselves. It’s in our DNA.
Repeating what I said in my reply to the poll, “Other”: is it three, or four ? generations since we have BT,DT. We simply need to polish the concept that we can still do a 180 and get back home with different equipment.
One of these days, you mean.
Even $20 billion in cost overruns are a drop in the bucket of government spending. The federal debt is literally 1,000 times larger than SLS. Two thirds of the federal budget goes to social security and Medicare. NASA gets less than half a percent.
I agree that SLS is too expensive and obsolete, but it’s just not worth worrying about.