We _are_ making progress in space exploration but the moon isn't of much interest anymore. The technology that is being developed to reach Mars for example is "technology we don't currently posses."
The moon has no resources to enable living there. You will always have to bring in air, water and food. Also, no current idea for something profitable to do there (Helium-3 mining is very theoretical). Some people want a moon base before a mars base, but I think they're mostly thinking about how much closer it is, not about what they want it for.
There's actually plenty of oxygen on the Moon, trapped in various rocks.
Water and food are indeed trickier; the Moon does have some trace amounts of carbon (deposited by solar wind) and hydrogen (at the poles), but extracting enough of those elements to sustainably support living there is unlikely unless we make some major discoveries or figure out a more reasonable way to import such things (one idea is to capture hydrocarbon-rich asteroids and park them in lunar orbit, but that ain't exactly my idea of "reasonable").
As for profitability, the Moon happens to be rich in silicon; a far-fetched idea might be to build a whole bunch of lunar microchip factories. The Moon is also full of raw materials in general, and getting them into space (e.g. to build spacecraft or to import to Earth) is a lot easier than getting such material into space from Earth. This makes the Moon a potentially-valuable staging point for missions to Mars and elsewhere.
If there is indeed water (or some other hydrogen source) on the Moon in sufficiently-abundant quantities, lunar fuel depots would actually be feasible; there's been quite a bit of work in recent decades around using silanes (hydrosilicons) as a useful fuel, replacing the need for hydrocarbon-based fuels (or using hydrogen directly).
The Moon could certainly be lived on easily, but with a mere 1-second communications lag between Earth and Moon, using remotely-operated drones to completely build a self-sustaining habitation before sending even a single human there would make more sense.
Indeed it would. I recall some work being done on a giant 3D printer than that print buildings out of concrete; figuring out a way to do the same with lunar materials would be a huge step in the right direction.
Complete nonsense. The moon has water which can obviously be broken down into oxygen and rocket fuel. The idea that we know the extent of the moon's resources is naive.
You're correct in that large, (comparatively) easily mined water ice deposits are located in permanent shadow at the poles, but there is likely water available in most locations, if you dig down below the surface.
>Are you saying you where talking metaphorically? Because the metaphor compares two similar things.
A metaphor compares two things similar from a certain aspect -- they could still differ in every other way. One could use a metaphor from agriculture to clarify their point on a political issue, for example.
>Also, why is a metaphor needed here?
For the same reasons that it's needed elsewhere. To get the point across in a simplified way, because people can understand a phenomenon better in one domain than they can in another (aka "domain dependence").
> A metaphor compares two things similar from a certain aspect
When I said "the metaphor compares two similar thing" I didn't mean metaphors in general, I meant your metaphor specifically compares two things that are similar. The relevant differences between NY and the moon do not exist between NY and Illinois.
> For the same reasons that it's needed elsewhere
Metaphors are often of dubious value. They can be used to clarify unfamiliar situation, where the bounds of the metaphor are clear; or, perhaps as in this case, encourage similar thinking about two related concepts.
But you provided a metaphor here without providing clarity on what the point was. When I think "why would I build a city in Illinois, when there already one in NY", none of the answers I come up with apply equally to the moon. e.g. land is cheaper/convenient (not on the moon), the scenery is better (maybe true, but not to outweight other more pressing concerns) etc.
