I've written before that space exploration is one government program I support -- the public sector has been subsidizing voyages of discovery at least since the time of Columbus. And the idea of a moon base appeals to me, probably as much for romantic reasons as practical ones. But Gregg Easterbrook, writing for Slate, makes a good case that returning to the moon would be an expensive folly:
What's it for? Good luck answering that question. There is scientific research to be done on the moon, but this could be accomplished by automatic probes or occasional astronaut visits at a minute fraction of the cost of a permanent, crewed facility. Astronauts at a moon base will spend almost all their time keeping themselves alive and monitoring automated equipment, the latter task doable from an office building in Houston. In deadpan style, the New York Times story on the NASA announcement declared, "The lunar base is part of a larger effort to develop an international exploration strategy, one that explains why and how humans are returning to the moon and what they plan to do when they get there." Oh
