Should We Land on the Moon's Poles or Equator?

Cujo writes "There is at present a lively controversy about sites for a crewed lunar landing. Advocates for landing near the poles, possibly on a mountain, point out the advantages of much higher sunlight availability and possible water resources in nearby cold traps. However, there may be more interesting geology and better mineral resources near the better-explored equator. NASA's Exploration Systems Architecture report lays out some of the tradeoffs."

Comments

Re:I've always wanted to know the answer to this:

[AJWM]

it has been suggested that the best way to counter the myth that the moon landing was faked is to go back to the moon and bring back something

Pete Conrad and Alan Bean did that on Apollo 12. They landed within sight and easy walking distance of Surveyor III, which had landed a few years earlier, and cut off and brought back part of the scoop arm and the TV camera. They're in the Smithsonian.

Didn't convince anyone who wanted not to be convinced.

Oh, and the Hubble's software won't let it be pointed anywhere near the Moon (or Sun, or Earth) without closing the "lens cap" (sun shield), so as to avoid burning out extremely sensitive instruments.

However, with the right equipment you can bounce a laser off the laser retroreflector panels the Apollo missions left, and see that.