If we get back to the moon (U.S. plans are to do so around 2020 I think), what will we do there? Are there particular studies that are planned for the moon or to things to leave behind? Or is it just a cool joy ride?
Two girls, one cup…in space!
It seems to me there’s a lot more geology we could do up there.
CMIIW but I thought that a lot of the reason for going back to the moon was to use it as a launching point for further manned space exploration such as going to Mars. Conceivably, the water on the poles of the moon could be used to fuel space exploration vehicles. I’m not clear on the science so those with more technical knowledge can chime in.
Whaling, naturally. 
Seriously, though, they’ve been promising us a Lunar Base and a Lunar Colony and Lunar Hotels for ages; I’d like to see some sort of experiment established to see if it’s viable.
I mean, we’ve got the International Space Station; surely the next step is an International Moonbase?
The manned concept was a cold war stunt. The astronauts were just tourists.
A dozen probes, left up there for months would have cost far less and told us a lot more.
But, alas, science is not the strong suit of anyone in Washington. They won’t vote for probes but they will vote for stunts.
One thing they will hopefully do keep a few folks there for long periods of time. Months to years eventually. That will tell us whether low gravity is as bad for the human body as zero gravity.
All we know now is 1 G is fine. Zero G sucks. Anything inbetween, who knows.
Of course we don’t have to (or had to) to go to the moon to do this particular experiment, but at least this will be an improvement of dicking around and floating around in low earth orbit for nearly 40 years getting very little done in the process besides going “gee, look how bad this is for you”
selenology
We’ll do what we should have been doing for the last 40 years: establish a mood base and a lunar colony.
At least I hope we will. It’s an absolute disgrace that we haven’t already.
Well, as a confirmed spaceboy 
I’d like to see at least some experiments into the feasibility of lunar mining for construction materials and oxygen generation. Probably both of those could be worked into the process of building a permanent lunar base.
Not voting for probes (“No Buck Rogers - no bucks!”) is IMO a silly attitude these days. Not only are probes able to do things that humans can’t, but they are very popular. Remember the hue and cry over shutting down the Hubble Space Telescope? The Spirit and Opportunity Rovers on Mars are popular also. Someone wrote livejournal blogs for Spirit and Opportunity rovers, fer crying out loud. BTW, the Spirit and Opportunity rovers had a 90 day expected lifetime, and are still working five years later. That would not be possible with a human mission - where would the extra air, water and food come from?
Doesn’t the 2020 landing project include probe missions?
The study of other planets is usually called geology too.
Yep, both are OK.
Sungazing, presumably.
Seconded. I remember Arthur C. Clarke suggested building an observatory on the far side of the Moon, away from Earth’s radio and light pollution, but now with Hubble and its likely successors that might not be necessary.
“Earth is the cradle of humanity, but one cannot remain in the cradle forever.” - Tsiolkovsky
The moon does have traces of water (cite), but doesn’t have polar ice caps the way that Earth and Mars do. There’s certainly not enough of it to be really used for anything, and even if there was, it’s not in any sort of easily usable form.
One of the big reasons to go back to the moon is to do geological research. If we can figure out how the moon formed we’ll probably learn a lot more about how the earth and/or other planets formed (ie, if we figure out that the giant impact theory is in fact correct, it may well tell us a good deal about what our solar system was like when it was just forming, which may tell us more about what the galaxy was like when it was just forming, and so on). In reality, the amount that we know about even our own moon, to say nothing of the universe as a whole, is incredibly tiny.
Also if we do another manned mission we’ll go and send some astronauts to be awesome, because c’mon, man on the moon = pure awesome.
Been watching Austin Powers again?
We Like The Moon (Warning: Probably very annoying.)
If that’s what we want to do, then we should work out the processes here on Earth first; then conduct experiments on the moon (perhaps sending a habitat ahead); then decide the feasibility of building a permanent Moon base; and then begin the process of building one.
From all I’ve heard, it doesn’t make any economic sense to go to the Moon. However much can be learned scientifically, as NinjaChick notes. Much or most of the exploration and research can be done robotically; but I think it takes ‘eyes on the ground’ for many serendipitous discoveries. I think though, that the most important reason to return to the Moon is psychological. Right now all of our eggs are in one basket. If the human race is to survive, we should have alternatives. The Earth isn’t going to last forever. (Of course even if we do survive until its end, how will we have evolved? In a billion years we may be as different from us now as we are now from a trilobite.) Returning to the Moon will give us a psychological boost (and experience) that will help us get to Mars – or elsewhere.
But I don’t see us spending the money for a permanent base.
Why? What’s the point?
I agree it would be awesome to have a science station there, but you’re never going to have a “lunar colony” ever, not now, not in a thousand years. “Colony” implies a settlement of people that has some sort of self-sustaining permanence. A moon base would have no self-sustainability of any kind, would cost an absolute metric assload of money, and wouldn’t be worth anything economically; as has been pointed out before, if the Moon had piles of diamonds and gold doubloons lying in piles on its surface it would not be worth it to go get them.
So you’d better be REALLY sold on the awesomeness of it.