Jeff Foust discusses the problems that NASA is having in communicating a purpose for its lunar activities. Understanding the “why” isn’t just important in terms of maintaining public support. It also drives requirements.

There are implicit assumptions about why we’re going back to the moon intrinsic in NASA’s chosen mission architecture, though they’ve never been stated explicitly. I lay out several potential reasons for a lunar base in this post, in which I point out that NASA’s architecture is actually ideally suited to a “touch and go” approach (i.e., the only reason we’re going to the moon is because the president said so, so we’ll build a system that’s really designed for Mars instead, and just happen to use it for some lunar missions if the political establishment decides it still wants to do that in a decade or so).

If the purpose was really to enable settlement, rather than just setting up a tiny and trivial government base, we’d be spending a lot more money on systems that drive down the marginal cost of trips to the moon. Instead, NASA has chosen an approach that maximizes it.