Because when we do science on earth we go to a place once take only a few samples and that's it. And then maybe every 10-20 years we might take another sample or something.
We have less data about the moon then any even half way interesting cave on earth.
Building a architecture to sustainably send human places will also enable a lot of other things. Having a 100 ton lander allows you to send far more then tiny probes. And we know well that actual humans exploring and looking for samples is better in many ways.
Getting humans to have long term sustainability and mobility on the moon and having tools and robotic support is long term.
The same architecture can then be reused for Mars.
On earth, most caves are explored with humans. Most science is not done by robotics only.
The post I was responding to was arguing for using low-tech systems and lots of power to get to the Moon again.
We know, and they knew at the time, that the achievement of getting to the Moon was just a cherry on top of the technological development required to do it.
Should not redo that work. The current strategy of using higher-tech components and less brute force is more scientifically interesting.
I also think going back to the moon is stupid, but I elaborated on that a bunch the other branch, so I’m not going to bother doing it again. But if we have to go back again, we should follow their spirit rather than their actions and use the most advanced systems available. Not a bunch of TTLs. The value is in testing our ability to manufacture complex devices to work in a hostile environment.