You make a good point. We might not have learned everything that we could. My point is we've learned enough. That was phrased poorly. That being said, going to

You make a good point. We might not have learned everything that we could. My point is we've learned enough. That was phrased poorly. That being said, going to the moon would require huge investments. Allocating resources doesn't happen in a vacuum, there is so much we can do with money that would be a smarter & more productive allocation of capital than going back the moon. I'm not against sending robotic probes a la Curiosity or pathfinder. But I'd have a hard time advocating for a new Apollo program or a moon base unless & until some clear benefit is established. Regardless, the point of the article was the inefficiencies of government. What I was arguing for is the pointlessness of bringing up this argument in light of the questionable returns of a moon enterprise. There are many other ways in which you could compare the efficiency of government investment vs private capital (cancer research, infrastructure building, education, healthcare )