Depends.
If the primary point was to put a man on the moon, the cost of bringing things back is basically free.
If on the other hand the primary mission was bringing back as many rocks as possible, then yes, the return would be very expensive.
If the primary point was to put a man on the moon, the cost of bringing things back is basically free.
If on the other hand the primary mission was bringing back as many rocks as possible, then yes, the return would be very expensive.
No, because they'd still have to pay to bring all the extra fuel to get the junk back up off the moon and back to Earth. And before that spend the cost of that extra fuel getting it up there. When every pound is like thousands of dollars it really adds up.
If I take a first class flight, how much does it cost to take my phone? Yes I could apportion a fraction of the cost of the ticket to the phone, but most would say free.
Now if the whole purpose of the flight were to get the phone from London to new York, the entire cost should be attributable to the phone, it is the reason for the journey.
Was extra fuel specifically brought? Or was it just safety margin? The Landers had spare fuel when they landed, is that waste, or safety margin?
How many objects are worth $17M/kg?
The stated mission for the Space Race has often been "put a man in orbit", "put a man on the Moon", "put staff in the space station for X period".
But implicit in all of those mission designs has been the goal of returning the crew alive and in one piece. The record is rather favorable in that regard, and it's always a tragedy when we lose someone.
So that's one of the reasons a crewed Mars missions is a daunting prospect: because even with improved technology, it may be a one-way trip.