The next human to plant a foot on the moon's surface is most likely to be Chinese or Indian.

[pampango]

The next human to plant a foot on the moon's surface is most likely to be Chinese or Indian — and that "small step" could happen as soon as 2020. In late October, China's moon orbiter Chang'e 2 shifted into a lopsided orbit that brings it as close as 9.5 miles from the moon's surface. It's snapping pictures, scouting a landing site for an unmanned rover in two to three years' time in a lesser-known area of the moon known as the "Bay of Rainbows." India plans a similar rover mission around the same time, and both countries hope to follow that feat with a manned mission as soon as a decade from now.

Both countries are pouring money and resources into moon programs. Japan has also floated plans for a manned lunar mission and moon base. By contrast, the recession-battered United States earlier this year scratched its Constellation program — the ambitious, George W. Bush-launched plan to return Americans to the moon's surface — because it was too pricey (about $100 billion through 2020 alone).

So is Asia poised to make a giant leap, past the United States, in space? Not necessarily. Experts say both China and India still lag far behind the United States in space expertise and experience. After all, American astronauts bounded over the moon's surface more than 40 years ago. President Barack Obama himself downplayed the importance of manned moon missions earlier this year, saying bluntly "we've been there."

Chinese and Indian scientists claim their space programs are only pursuing peaceful, scientific research, and they deny they're competing in a "space race." But it's clear that prestige and bragging rights are drivers for both countries — and neither wants to be the second Asian nation to put a man on the moon. "We can definitely put Chinese on the moon," Ouyang Ziyuan, a senior adviser to China's moon program, said recently, according to Taiwan's Want Daily. But if China falls behind India, "That would show that Chinese scientists are incompetent," he said.

[MilesColtrane]

1. While a moon base would be nice, there doesn't seem to be enough...

direct investment return to justify the enormous expense.

If we're looking for Helium 3, there's enough for research purposes collected in our old nuclear arsenal.

If we're going to pour huge amounts of money into exploration and tech development let's make Mars our goal.

[RC]

2. To go to Mars, we need a staging area.

That is what the moon needs to be used for.

[MilesColtrane]

3. The cost of building a moon base would far exceed that of simply launching the necessary fuel...

from Earth.

Stopping at the moon would require fuel to descend to the lunar surface, then blast off again, which would make any Mars mission hugely more expensive.

The launch cost of fuel—that is, the cost of placing fuel into orbit—is the No. 1 expense for any manned flight beyond Earth. A large portion of the weight of any Earth-to-Moon-to-Mars expedition would be dedicated to the fuel needed for just the layover. This makes absolutely no sense.

The best solution is to send an unmanned return vehicle to mars with the ability to remotely manufacture the fuel needed to get back. Only after it safely lands and creates enough fuel for the return trip would you launch a crew directly from Earth orbit to Mars.

(edited to add link)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Direct

[HopeHoops]

4. Yeah, but the moon has a vast supply of water in pure form. That's called "rocket fuel".

Since the gravity is on the order of 1/6 that of Earth, the mining would easily pay for itself as a supply for a space dock from which to launch missions to other planets. The thing is also REALLY close (relative to other things) and always in close proximity.

And who really gives a shit who gets there next? Their initial missions will be no different than ours - "to say we did and see what we can bring home to study".