Here's an artist's conception of how the expedition might end up looking like: https://ahmadalikarim.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/asdfghjkl....

I signed up purely to upvote this :)

On a more serious note, there appears to be zero scientific motivation to do this. It just appears to be a self-set challenge. Am I wrong?

There is a proposed study, but I can't say how much of the thinking behind that was because "the moon is cheap so lets think up a project involving that" and how much was because there's a serious gap in our knowledge that needs investigating.

Anyhow, from the BBC article:

    > The mission will also have a scientific component. The aim is to drill and
    > analyse a sample from underneath the lunar surface, something which
    > has never been done before.

On the radio this morning, one of leading guys (I forget who) was also talking about looking for data regarding the origins of life (since the moon is believed to have been part of Earth originally). But, again, I don't know how credible that argument.

Personally I think the reasoning behind this project feels a little reverse engineered, however I'm going to support it regardless since it should hopefully generate a few jobs in an industry that really needs more focus in the UK (some days it feels like everyone here wants to be celebrities without really thinking about any skills they might have that would be worth celebrating)

I suspected as much. It doesn't sound like "value for money" which is my concern. There are better scientific objectives than shooting for the moon cold-war style to raise awareness and interest in it. Look how much attention everyone paid to Beagle 2 which had proper scientific objectives, that was until it tragically failed. RIP.

Couldn't agree more with your last point; this country is tragically embroiled in celebrityism.

I suspect part of the reasoning for going to the moon rather than elsewhere is exactly to avoid a Beagle-like fiasco. This should be a relatively safe bet to relaunch the sector.

I wonder how much of this initiative is a reaction to recent success at ESA. To the layman, ESA seems politically dominated by continental interests; and a couple of bigwigs seemed to take a swipe at "countries going alone" during Phileas celebrations.

For my education: why the title change? Originally submitted with the article's actual title, which I thought was the rule.

The Moon constitutes a fine colony for Her Majesty. My only hope is that the probe will be self-replicating and speaking plain English. The British are ridiculously good at drilling.

>>Lunar Mission One aims to survey the Moon's south pole to see if a human base can be set up in the future.

If a simple survey mission is going to cost $780 million, you have to wonder how much a moon base will cost.

I wonder how much of that cost is the launcher, how much is R&D and how much the actual payload hardware will cost to manufacture. A proper moon base may not be that expensive given economies of scale.

Still cheaper than 13 years of Middle-Eastern wars.

Considering the absolutely pointless HS2 rail project in the UK is set to cost $27 billion, $780 million is pretty cheap :)

Charles Stross will have to stop making jokes about the secret British space program.

OR WILL HE?