Bob Clark

“That architecture could be put in place for $7 billion to $8 billion, Stern said. “This is a breakthrough cost,” he said. In addition to the $1.4 billion for each two-person expedition, Golden Spike would derive revenue from media ventures associated with each moonshot, Stern said.”

And:
“Are Golden Spike’s assumptions about the demand for lunar missions correct, even if the price point is in its estimated range of $1.4 billion and up? Stern said Golden Spike was in contact with one individual who might be able to pull together a moonshot deal, but the prime market for missions would be national space agencies. “We’ve already had conversations with some national space agencies, and they’ve expressed their interest,” he said. Stern declined to name names, but said that the agencies were based in Europe and Asia. ”

This could a plan to exploring the Moon.
1.4 billion for 2 crew. Could countries like Canada UK, Saudi, have a instant lunar program?
Could encourage more lunar robotic mission?

I would vote for development for exactly the reasons Paul outlined and because a successful development program would inevitably lead to settlement. As development progressed the number of personnel required at various locations would strain even more advanced Earth surface to LEO transportation systems. That would lead to the organizations running the development to wish to increase the Tours of Duty for the individuals staying at the various in-space locations. These people (unlike past settlers) are going to be well trained in valuable skills; the way to get them to do that will be to make the various habitats (lunar surface/orbital) more comfortable. As that process proceeds the habitats will eventually become comfortable enough that some significant percentage of the inhabitants will choose to stay. You then get settlements without ever declaring them a goal.

As to any debate about orbital vs. surface settlements I am a proponent of orbital settlements, but it is way too early to argue those points. It is akin to a couple of trappers in a lean-to on Manhattan Island debating what the street layouts should be in New York City in one hundred years (except we haven’t even built the lean-to yet). If you are an engineer (and I am) it is a lot of fun, but the actual .decisions of that detail will be made later when the development program has progressed further.

That being said, “exploration” seems to me to be clearly inadequate to describe the task of setting up a space navy. Webber would have better argued for inclusion of “cis-lunar development” and “space infrastructure development” and similar terms in the NASA charter and de-emphasis of the word “exploration”. ”

The problem with NASA is it has long lists of what it is doing. And NASA doesn’t need to add settlements to the lists of things it’s not going to do.
The idea of NASA settlement is misuse of the word settlement.

Instead NASA should focus on doing exploration.
And one of reason NASA should exploring is so in the future there will be settlements in space, but not NASA settlements in space.
And if NASA explores the Moon with the intention of finding minable water deposits- then if they are truly minable then they will be commerically mined. Just like whenever one find a area which is minable, one gets that area mined. And if lunar water is being mine and rocket fuel is being made and sold, then if Navy needs rocket fuel made in space, it can then buy as much as it needs.
So lunar exploration can lead to navy presence in space, if the generals, congress, and president think it is necessary.

I am not proposing that government build it — I am using it as an example of something whose construction would become possible if a cislunar transportation system based on the use of lunar resources were built. I contend that creating such a transportation system is an appropriate governmental activity, one which provides benefits to both government and the commercial sector.

The public would personally benefit from this “ISS” far more than any theoretical benefit to them from the current ISS. Such a specific tangible object is easier to understand and get enthused about than a phrase about strategic and national assets in cis-lunar space. But would such a complex naturally be viewed as strictly within the commercial domain? So I don’t know if it could be used as a rationale for the development of a cis-lunar transportation infrastructure funded largely or exclusively by the government.

At a minimum, the same as any other satellite user (maintenance, construction of large aperture, distributed space systems, etc.) But in addition (and possibly more importantly), they would have special needs in the areas of asset protection and power projection. Disabling and denial of space assets is the first priority of an adversary in wartime. The military needs to anticipate this kind of activity and take appropriate counter-measures. The availability of a cislunar transportation system would be an enormous deterrent to aggressive actions in space.