It’s started over at The Economist. It seems pretty clear that neither debater had an opportunity to see their protagonist’s input. Gold’s criticism is not of opposition to going to the moon per se, but against NASA’s ability to do it effectively, particularly with its chosen architecture. Gregg’s position (and pretty much standard boilerplate from his old Space Studies Institute days) is that the moon is important as a destination, but he is basically silent on how to get there, or even whether or not NASA should do it, or someone else.
At least for this round, they are basically talking past each other. Tomorrow should be more interesting, since they will both be able to respond to what the other said today. As I predicted previously, I suspect that they will be more in agreement than the people who set up the “debate” expect.
Mike Gold’s statement strikes me as falling well within the scope of what NewSpace advocates usually argue.
Rand, I’d be interested to hear your points of disagreement with Mr. Gold.
I didn’t say I had any.
From Mike Gold’s defense: “America, once the world’s pre-eminent nation for private sector satellite launch, has gone from being number one, to having only one commercial launch in 2006 (and none at all so far this year).”
Um… SpaceX? Or does that not count because they were launching a Malaysian satellite?
I’d put the Moon before Mars in any kind of settlement plan as a proof of concept. But Augustine’s Lagrange points, NEO and successively further destinations does provide a path for continual improvement. I like the focus on dry launch and fuel depots. They are likely to be moot points, however, until NASA is shamed into doing something economical and effective by private explorers or foreign.