>>102956
>You get one off missions like these, and you'll be happy because no one minds spending a few billions here and there once in a while lmao
The Artemis missions cost billions because NASA contracted Boeing and Lockheed Martin to make the SLS rocket and the Orion capsule, respectively. Since it was a cost-plus contract, the contractors weren't incentivized to keep costs low, and I'm sure you already know about the various stories of delays and cost overruns regarding other programs from those defense contractors, so a NASA contract wouldn't be any different. Not to mention that the rocket and spacecraft are expendable after one mission.
>>102958
>There's also no proof of any value on the moon besides the soil content
The real value of the Moon is that you can use it as a base for infrastructure to support other space missions. It takes around 8-9 km/s of delta-v to launch to low Earth orbit, but it only takes around 6km/s of delta-v to go from the surface of the moon to low Earth orbit. It could be as low as ~3km/s if you use aerobreaking using Earth's atmosphere (Obviously, this requires your craft to have the appropriate hardware to do so). The end goal would be to build a mass driver on the Moon, which would take care of the delta-v costs of launch and ejecting
