Ok, some said it cost to much to go back to the moon because of money, why cant they send a robot like mars?

It is not about money it is more about "what for." There was very little that we learned from going to the moon. Why would you go back - and for what purpose. What could anyone learn from a return back to the moon that we dont already know. The taxpayers want more Mars information with those little robots than to risk lives for a return trip to yesterdays tourist attraction.

What NASA found from the moon missions is any scientific research that can be done on the moon can be done in the space station at a much reduced cost. Everything mankind can do on the moon at this time has been done.

If your generation is going to spend money on space exploration, it should be for a mission to Mars to see if it is possible to establish an actual research colony. Being able to stay in a laboratory more than a few days would have enormous value for experiments and exploration.

When deciding how much to spend, the question of "what is being accomplished" is important.

What would be the purpose of sending anything or anybody to the Moon?

Most space based scientific experiments can be conducted in the ISS more cheaply and easily than on the Moon.

Your share of the cost may be $100 to $200. Would you like to pay that merely for more pictures of a person walking on the Moon?

. .

They have, they've sent orbiters instead of rovers because without an atmosphere or geologic surface features of water, they can survey the features of interests such as gravity variations ( GRAIL probes ) which they can't with rovers. Now if there were features interesting enough for rovers, they would send a rover. Note that the Google Lunar X-Prize is for a private firm to put a rover on the Moon, obviously no science would be involved, it's just for show to simple minded people such as yourself.

It looks like the Chinese are going, the Japanese are sending out more orbiters, the Russians will be sending some test robots - only one big player not in the game. Seems those wars of aggression ruined the credit rating

They are sending robot to the Moon, if it is not problem that it is chinese robot, but I do not think it is important which nation goes there, important is that humans are coming back to moon.

Sending a robot is still a significant investment. The problem is that the general population finds national defense more important than scientific discovery (which includes space exploration), so all else equal, they would rather invest money in weapons than space travel. Thanks, Obama.

States spend much more money on making war to each other than helping poor people or making scientific discoveries. Well... it's easier to steal money from taxpayers with war than anything else.

I'm not sure why nobody else asked, but would you please explain why sending robotic landers is less expensive than sending humans? The expense isn't due to the astronauts' pay packets.