Regarding the overall architecture, I’d like to see some more redundancy. I mean, it’s a good thing to have backup flight computers, redundant communications capability, right? So if we had multiple competing teams building bases, for the same price, isn’t that also a good idea?

So I would say fund three teams, with overall goals (Level 0 Requirements) and milestones, but otherwise give them a lot of freedom to design as they wish. So, for example, I expect Team Blue Origin would pair a combination of New Glenn and/or New Armstrong to enable their Blue Moon delivery service, while contracting habitats from Bigelow. And Team SpaceX might use Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy (and maybe even a newer launcher) to get Dragon capsules to the Moon, with habitats from Axiom. Then Team ULA announces transport via Atlas V for now, Vulcan in a few short years. In both cases, ULA relies heavily on the ace up their sleeve, pun intended, the ACES upper stage, which promises to be quite capable and versatile for lunar delivery and setup. For their vehicles, they team with Catepillar.

I don’t really claim the details will look just like this; it’s just wild guessing. However, I do stand by the principle. If NASA wants a base, on time and within budget, then milestone-driven payments for development followed by fixed price contracts for services is the proven way to go.

Yes, there is a lot of upfront costs and nobody has a viable business model (kind of like Spaceport America not doing very well because they have no working business model). However, I see how we are consuming resources at ever increasing rate (one statistic I read is last year all chromium mined was more than previous years combined). Also consuming phosphorus for fertilizer at increasing rates. There’s not that many supernovas occurring nearby to give us more heavier elements.

I see the Moon as deposits for various elements and minerals, it will take time to make it useful but it’s there. Besides I’m getting bored with JourneyToMars. To begin I want to see small lunar rovers as we see cubesats becoming more popular. NASA provide some kickstart for small companies to rove around, just keep them away from Apollo sites. Let’s see how http://moonexpress.com/ works out.

1. Find out if a 1/6 gravity is deleterious to human health and reproduction and the health and reproduction of other animals

2. Utilize the resources in the Moon’s low gravity well to grow the economy

3. Utilize the resources in the Moon’s low gravity well to enhance our national security.

4. Utilize the resources in the Moon’s low gravity well to to enhance our ability to travel to other planets in the solar system

5. Provide a highly desirable nearby destination for space tourism

6. Inspire our children to look up at the Moon and the heavens as part of their future in an exciting and prosperous new frontier.

Marcel

So within a couple years there should be a dozen or so of these water-shielded stages in Low Lunar Orbit and it will be time to send the first astronauts. They move in to the workshops, connect pairs with a tether system for artificial gravity and using Blue Moon landers as boosters they configure some of them as Lunar Cyclers. Astronauts would then have a safe journey by boarding the shielded cycler near Earth and debarking near the Moon.

The next step would be to find lava tubes for the astronauts to land near and set up shop inside. Far from the ice at the poles but water trucks could be landed to provide communications between the tubes and the pole. At that point the colony would start to become self-sufficient. Perhaps in as little as ten years.

My view on SSTO is that beam propulsion might make it work but most likely only if the energy is beamed down from space. This would take a space solar power infrastructure.

From wiki: “The microwave thermal rocket was invented by Kevin L.G. Parkin in 2002 and was the subject of his Ph.D. dissertation.[8] Between May 2012 and March 2014, the DARPA/NASA millimeter-wave thermal launch system (MTLS) project continued this work, culminating in the first microwave thermal rocket launch in February 2014. Several launches were attempted but problems with the beam director could not be resolved before funding ran out in March 2014.”

From wiki: “SBSP is being actively pursued by Japan, China, and Russia. In 2008 Japan passed its Basic Space Law which established Space Solar Power as a national goal[3] and JAXA has a roadmap to commercial SBSP. In 2015 the China Academy for Space Technology (CAST) briefed their roadmap at the International Space Development Conference (ISDC) where they showcased their road map to a 1 GW commercial system in 2050 and unveiled a video[4] and description[5] of their design.”

Get some other countries involved, keep a place constantly occupied.
Like the soon to die of old age space station to nowhere.

Except an underground Moon village will not have an expiration date.

In fact, it is perhaps THE problem because it deals with Dr. Spudis’ mission statement.

Humans evolved to thrive (arrive, survive, thrive) in Earth gravity. And radiation levels found in the bottom couple miles of atmosphere. Temperature and air pressure are slightly negotiable but we know what radiation does to DNA and we know what not enough gravity does. Permanent damage is not conducive to permanent settlement.

I speculate the “permanent” habitats will be in cislunar space and not under the lunar surface. Certainly not on the lunar surface. If the very large lava tubes exist then that is where you will find hundreds and then thousands and eventually more working in factories. But the only way to provide 1G on the Moon is with a centrifuge arrangement (a circular “sleeper train”) and the more people the more problematic this becomes.

So I would guess the factories will have tours of however long and however much debilitation is considered acceptable and then the workers will go back up to a 1G space station for rehabilitation. They will go back and forth a number of times over a period of years and then return to Earth. Until such a time when miles-in-diameter artificial hollow moons (Bernal Spheres) are constructed, probably in the next century, I expect people will go to the Moon to work for 3 to 6 years at a time.

Well, yes and no. It’s true there is nothing worth bringing back to the surface of Earth, but that’s missing the point. The point is for people–and their robots–to mine the water ice, to dig up the regolith, and KEEP IT THEMSELVES. That is, to turn that water into propellant, separate the oxygen for breathing, to use it to extend life to a world now dead. To be sure, the first few flights will have to take all of their fuel and oxygen with them, but that’s not economical for long: we’ll need to live on what’s there. That is exactly what will bring the prices down.

I know this seems like a lot of cost up front, for no return. But that’s how it’s always been with colonies–little pieces of civilization. They, like babies, take a lot of care at first, then become useful.

“We go to the Moon to create new spaceflight capabilites using lunar resources”

We can only hope that reason prevails and we don’t repeat the mistakes made last time.

Is there way to ensure a lunar return can survive multiple presidential administrations?