…you took the words right out of my mouth.

When we get to the moon, I propose we elect wg cannon (or any future descendants) as space czar since he (or is it a she?) knows exactly what they are talking about.

How long have we been sitting here, twittling our thumbs, going no where except around our own globe?

Either we get serious about space now, or when a nice ice rock comes floating near by.

Space may not solve our problems on Earth, but it will provide more opportunities for us down below.

My answers to Jeff’s questions:

So, should NASA focus on space transportation versus exploration, even though previous efforts by the agency to reduce the price-per-pound of reaching orbit have failed?

Been there and done that. There is still no market beyond the Space Station, so the outcome beyond the Space Station is unlikely to be different. More importantly, NASA is not the right organization to do this. NASA should push the far frontier (VSE) and develop technology that folks like Kistler can use to lower costs.

Is $50 billion enough to lure private interests to develop a lunar base—

Interesting question. My initial answer would be “possibly yes,” but it would be a gamble and should be done with the VSE, not instead of. I would suggest a smaller amount for some specific sub-goal like a working oxygen factory on the lunar surface.

More importantly, this idea is probably a non-starter in Congress. Look at how difficult it is to get them to sign off on the pennies being asked for now. More likely is some bazillionair, or set of them, caughing up the prize money.

and if the $50 billion alone isn’t enough to the venture to be profitable,

It doesn’t need to be profitable, at least in the short term. Was SpaceShipOne’s flight profitable? No, but it might lead to a profitable industry. Are the Russian tourist flights profitable? Maybe. They certainly do not return the costs of the infrastructure, but that was deployed for other reasons and they do defray some of the costs of operating that infrastructure. Contrary to the opinions of too many of my “free market” friends, simple “profitability” is far too simple a measure.

could a base eke out revenue elsewhere?

We’ll never know until we try it, but I would suggest yes, cf. my article on the “Oxygen Road” in Space News.

What about alternative mechanisms, like a 25-year tax holiday for the first company to establish a lunar base,

Probably more realistic in Congress, but still likely to be a hard sell in a Congress that really doesn’t care what happens as long as it isn’t a complete withdrawal from human spaceflight.

— Donald

Why?

Welll, for one, I think there is some signs that the english want a manned program but can’t do it on their own.. and don’t see ESA as the solution. The English are losing scientific prestige and they know it.

Russia, russia is putting out more and more press about programs that exists only on paper. If there are any moon efforts from them they will most like be financed from foriegn money, but I think the government wants a real national space effort again. .. Again if the deal is like the one like the ISS its doa. but if the formula is different??

Commericial, commercial always follows national.. Look at the bigalow habitats.

We still don’t have any real viable commercial reason to go to the moon. The only true reason to go to the moon and beyond is exploration, DOD and science. There is nothing you could propose in a business plan that would excite company share holders at this time. I think something between Centennial Challenges and the $50 billion incentive is needed with very clear goals for each deliverable.

For the first time I think that there actually is a chance this might work.

The shuttle will be retired in 2010, no one wants to keep flying it. Congress, Nasa , nobody. Imagine if Congress Killed the constellation project and Nasa decided to keep flying the shuttle and there was another accident!

There will be a 4 year gap, thats a given.. I used to be worried about that gap.. But what does it hurt, we might or might not have something from cots .. or just have to keep buying from the russians or whoever else might be flying.. So What.

Bruise our ego, national prestige, not if we are actively testing and preparing for a major moon effort.

International Partners won’t sign on ??? Yea, heard that one too.
Dispite a lot of negative rumblings , I think the english for instance will use this to energize there declining science culture, I Think russia will most definitely sign on (because I don’t think dispite all the talk lately they can pull a lunar effort off on their own). The key is a different formula than used with the ISS project.

There are no indications yet that congress will kill the Aries I, if aries I flies , aries V is a direct evolution from Aries I. So there’s a good chance it might make it too.

Take care of problems at home first???
Reality check, there WILL ALWAYS be problems at home. We can only rob our science endenvours to support social programs so long and than it comes back to haunt you in the form of lost leadership in technology.

Look as a civilization , we need to decide if we want to be explorers or just sit on our asses and drink bear and watch football games until some nice chunk of space rock comes crashing into our little home.

Really, I’d like to see NASA go back. I think it’s wonderful for science reasons. If we back private only, how long would it take to get there? Even if the payout was incremental…