The Moon is not special in this regard but it is a huge desert, drier than many of the deserts here on Earth. We could argue the resources of the ocean are valuable because they are on the Ocean Floor and not the land, so lets send people to colonize and integrate the ocean into our economy!!! But its just really silly!!!

It can’t be a driving force in the economy because the simple economics of it means its will always cost more resources than can be gained from the Moon itself unless we get amazing new cheap technology. Even if we had cheap, reliable spaceflight, it would undermine using local resources since it would simply be cheaper to send most of them from Earth than build up an entire replica of our industrial system on another world.

If we can’t trade the resources of the Moon with Earth, they are of no real economic value. They don’t produce wealth or make the pie bigger. Some of them could be used to support lunar astronauts and lower costs, but the whole endeavor would still cost millions and billions. A base is possible but there is little purpose in colonising the Moon, other than, because we can do it, if we really try. It would never be sustainable or a wise investment. The point of a base would be to allow science to be performed, but it would be much cheaper, safer and more efficient to just use tele-operated robots.

“I did write a novel about this idea. Click my name for the link.”

Very good! Today’s dreams are tomorrow’s realties … as proven yesterday by the likes of Jules Verne and Konstantin Tsiolkovsky! Moreover, an interesting story can often spark the imagination more than a dry engineering tome (or history book). I wish I had more of a flair for writing fiction myself. Kudos!

Persuade Russia, China, the EU, India & the US that their global prestige “requires” that they too have a lunar mining base and by being the middleman at EML-1 you could make a fortune.

I did write a novel about this idea. Click my name for the link.

“However, if we are willing to think outside the box and be willing to support efforts that are not NASA-centric then other opportunities may exist. My personal hobby horse is for the deployment of an EML-1 Gateway owned and operated by the private sector and flagged to a small neutral power such as Singapore or Isle of Man that otherwise is NOT a traditional spacefaring nation. This facility would offer logistics, depot and transportation hub services to all the other spacefaring nations, present and future. In geo-political terms my EML-1 Gateway would be a patterned after the historical entrepot cities such as Singapore, Hong Kong, Capetown and Dubai; small politically independent and neutral cities that trade with everyone.”

Again, a very interesting idea … all the more so because your focus is on the financing part of the equation..

As I think I mentioned in a previous post, it isn’t just an aircraft manufacturer that has to come up with the money to design and build new airliners … the airlines also have to come up with the money to buy and operate the aircraft. And that factor can sometimes be the fly in the ointment that stops a new aircraft from moving forward.

As I’ve also mentioned, I don’t see the real “commercialization” of space transportation happening without more destinations in space. Your idea would present at least one such destination. And if one country did it, others might follow — offering expanded opportunities for others to access space (both LEO and beyond).

In short … an interesting concept, indeed. And definitely thinking outside of the box.

That said, given the current economy, both the Moon and Mars look farther away than ever.

If we expect the US taxpayers to write most or all of the checks, then I agree with you.

However, if we are willing to think outside the box and be willing to support efforts that are not NASA-centric then other opportunities may exist.

My personal hobby horse is for the deployment of an EML-1 Gateway owned and operated by the private sector and flagged to a small neutral power such as Singapore or Isle of Man that otherwise is NOT a traditional spacefaring nation. This facility would offer logistics, depot and transportation hub services to all the other spacefaring nations, present and future.

In geo-political terms my EML-1 Gateway would be a patterned after the historical entrepot cities such as Singapore, Hong Kong, Capetown and Dubai; small politically independent and neutral cities that trade with everyone.

The sci-fi TV show Babylon-5 also offers a partial analogy for my vision.

= = =

Despite the current economy, global sovereign wealth funds have ample cash. Thus, Singapore could build an EML-1 Gateway by simply buying the necessary hardware and launch services “off the shelf” from any nation willing to sell — US, Russia, China, India, EU etc . . .

They just need a business model that would produce profit.

@ Anne Spudis

“I am a former Zubrin-ista (Mars or bust!) who has been persuaded to love the Moon by your husband, Paul Spudis, and by Dennis Wingo. The Moon simply is where humanity needs to begin its economic expansion out into the solar system.”

I cannot agree with you more. Mars is a remarkable world. I am all for the exploration of Mars by robots and humans. But I will always remember what Ernst Stuhlinger told me: “Mars must wait until we have nuclear propulsion to get us there … and experience in lunar habitation that will prove to be invaluable when we travel beyond the Moon.” In other words, he believed we need to return to the Moon first … “for many reasons.” I do, too. That doesn’t sound exciting to the “Mars or Bust” proponents. But I believe it makes the most sense. I must confess, however, that when I see some of the Mars Rover images, the Red Planet looks very appealing for human explorers! That said, given the current economy, both the Moon and Mars look farther away than ever.

You don’t seem to understand the problem with the Shuttle. It is not that it “mixed crew with cargo.” The problem with the Shuttle was that it was advertised as a reliable system, and it turned out not to be that, not because it was reusable, but because it was insufficiently so, and it turned out to be uneconomical for delivering anything — crew, cargo, whatever — for a reasonable price or for reasonable reliability. The solution was not to separate crew and cargo, but to come up with a better design, or rather, to come up with requirements for an industry with multiple better designs, which is finally starting to happen, as demonstrated with today’s flight…

“For human space flight, there are really only two choices today – paying Russia for possible open seats on Soyuz, or convincing the U.S. Government that you deserve to ride on the Shuttle. What a commercial crew capability would make possible is the purchase of a trip to LEO without having to buy it from a government. Even though the initial market will be for the ISS, it leaves open the possibility for new businesses in LEO, and they could leverage the system that the U.S. puts in place.”

Good points … all the more so if and when Bigelow offers some destinations other than the ISS. In any case, today’s launch by SpaceX was good news — and an historic event.

“SSTs were seen as game-changing aircraft during their development in the 1960s.”

Maybe. But in reality Concorde was really competing in the luxury travel market. People had choices, and it boiled down to how quickly you wanted to get there, and how much you were willing to spend. It wasn’t that the Concorde went someplace that no one else did, and their failure boiled down to pure economics – they cost too much to operate.

For human space flight, there are really only two choices today – paying Russia for possible open seats on Soyuz, or convincing the U.S. Government that you deserve to ride on the Shuttle.

What a commercial crew capability would make possible is the purchase of a trip to LEO without having to buy it from a government. Even though the initial market will be for the ISS, it leaves open the possibility for new businesses in LEO, and they could leverage the system that the U.S. puts in place.

Someone always has to be the first customer, and it’s not unusual for governments to be those customers – commercial crew is not anything new economically or marketwise.