Joshua Elder wants to see the Moon become a retirement community.

It's possible, though I suspect that it might even become a desirable location for the working class as well, depending on how bad things get down here from a tax and freedom standpoint. There's nothing in this piece that wasn't true a decade ago, though, and he seems a little overenamored of particular technical solutions (e.g., single-stage-to-orbit).

As is often the case, it started off a round of comments arguing about the best way to build space transports, and how it's expensive to get into space because of the "physics" (which reminds me--I found a nice page the other day that thoroughly debunks this notion, and provides a good FAQ as to why space access is currently expensive).

The real point is that we have to get private enterprise on the case to figure out the best way, rather than arguing about it on the internet, and once we do, it will become apparent what the best uses of our off-world locales and resources are as well.

I only scanned Peter A. Taylor arguments, but took note he says that "What good is a newborn?" to be fallaceous as an argument for manned space efforts (exploring or colonizing?) I see it as precisely the right analogy. I mean, what good is a telephone if there are no others to call Mr. Bell? Is that a sound basis for a no telephones business strategy?

Space is full of immense, exploitable assets. To argue that it's cheaper and easier to exploit those assets we're standing on at the moment changes onces we put boots on foreign soil.

Those that argue against the business case for space sound like xeno arguing against motion. The logic may be impeccable, but it's a losing argument in the long run.

It's all about the real estate baby! (...and the maturation of viewpoints once things become historically obvious... yes, we knew all along that space investment would pay handsomely... any fool could see that...)

Went to the link on space craft costs and found this talking about single stage to orbit by comparison to multi-stage:

>It's like saying that one is less than two, >therefore one Indy 500 race car is simpler and >cheaper to operate than two touring motorcycles.

Obviously, an indy car needs a lot more mantenance than two touring bikes. Single stage to orbit may eventually work when airbreathing halves fuel payload and or propellants can be enhanced to be - say twice as powerful. 500mph Rail launches would surely help its cause too.

However, Much like the helicopter still uses the somewhat inefficient tail rotor many years after its predicted demise, I think most future launch vehicles will have some type of stages. The German Sager which combined a commercial SST with a larger-than-I-thought orbiter was really nice. The Follow-on Energiia BURAN-T fly-back booster too had the apearance of a working model not to mention a 150 ton shrouded payload to LEO.

Single-stage-to-orbit SSTO may have been the real hang-up with venturestar and its contemporaries. It seems that although there were only a handful of proposals for this new shuttle, they pretty much covered the gambit of SSTO designs. Back in the 70’s there were page after page of concepts for the proposed shuttle because stages offer a great deal more flexibility. Just don’t think you can get past stages and be able to deliver a big payload.