>So we should go back to the moon just because we can afford it? No. I said, "Accepting that it may not be viable for economic reasons..." And then proceeded to make a separate pont. I concede in the very sentence you quoted that economically going back for the clout of saying we did it again doesn't jive with current governmental spending habits. >So? We'd do much better to start from scratch now anyway, but why bother? "Been there, done that" The politicians seem to think it's much better to spend money on gibs rather than gee-whiz tech now anyway. I agree. The point isn't that we did it already, just dust off the lander and an old Apollo rocket and let's do that shit again. The point is that NASA said, when asked why we hadn't gone back, that they had lost the tech or destroyed it and that's the reason why we won't go back. That point is rendered moot by my second point... >our own recent advances in commercial tech like the cell phone your holding being thousands of times more powerful than the lunar lander >>And that has what to do with anything? The fact that we have better tech now and could do it again with half or less than half the R&D they did in the 60's bolsters my point that NASA claiming "we can't do it again cuz Jimbo shredded the blueprints" is horseshit.