They say they went there 6 times and didn't find even one single thing of interest, like water.
Rubbish. For example the Apollo-sourced samples dramatically changed our view on the genesis of the Moon.
We are still learning from the Apollo-sourced moonrocks. A study in 2010 by James Greenwood identified comets as the likely source of deuterium in the Apollo samples.
Rubbish? Really? What was the view on the genesis of the Moon prior to Apollo, and what is that view now?
Thank you for asking.
Prior to Apollo, three theories had been posited:
1. Joint formation: the Earth and the Moon formed in their present relationship;
2. Fission: the early molten Earth spun so fast that a portion was spun off to form the Moon;
3. Capture: the Moon formed somewhere else in the Solar System, and was gravitationally captured by the Earth.
However, all three theories had problems.
Thanks to information supplied by the Apollo rocks, a new theory was developed which was first publicly presented at a conference at Kona in Hawaii in about 1984.
The new theory, which is still substantially as originally presented, is that the early Earth was struck a slightly off-centre blow by another planet about the size of Mars. That planet was shattered, most of its core absorbed by the Earth, and mantle material blasted off to form the Moon.
And, what's the difference between moon rocks from the moon, and moon rocks from Antarctica?
Lunar meteorites collected in Antarctica show evidence of passing through the Earth's atmosphere at high speed, and of contamination by the Earth. The Apollo rocks show no such signs, and instead show signs of having been struck by micrometeorites (called zap pits) and solar radiation. There is no technology to recreate zap pits.
