I must admit that we do rather well with Earth-based observation and we owe a great deal of it to competition given to (jealous) NASA by the National Science Foundation. But SMART-1 is no better than an Earth-based telescope? The article, which focuses on the innovative propulsion method used instead of what SMART-1 will otherwise do at the Moon, says:

"Once it arrives in orbit at the moon, the craft will use an X-ray in an attempt to map the whole of the moon's surface for the first time..."

This is no better than an Earth-based observatory?

The article also mentions:

"the establishment of a communications link with Earth via a laser beam."

That, together with the ion propulsion that will be used, suggests that significant advances will emanate from this European socialist mission, when compared to Earth-based observing. And if I perused the SMART-1 website, I bet I'd see even more distinctions.

Perhaps you don't consider those distinctions meaningful, though?

As for the reduction of costs over time in the high tech realm... Perhaps you're unaware that with NASA, the cost of launching humans into space has gone nowhere but UP over time? Socialist programs tend to "achieve" such things. I'm no more embarrassed by my scrutiny of NASA in our purported democracy (plutocracy, actually) than you are by being a NASA apologist who doesn't always dot his i's or cross his t's even as you insult others in this forum. I enjoyed the jousting nonetheless. And I agree with you on this much: if something can be done just as well withOUT going into space, then we may as well opt for the cheaper approach given our record high $5.8 trillion dollar national debt. That's why we should outsource Soyuz missions and discontinue using the murderous, pork-laden Shuttle but that's a different conversation.