Workingman wrote:Who knows the real reasons for their existence?
My guess would be options and challenges. The more you know, the more you can calculate how hard it will be. They're getting better at it. I doubt we'll see many more failed attempts at Mars landings. Also, when the Moon restarts, there is guaranteed to be a race to get to it and claim territory.
It would probably be a lot easier to set up a manufacturing base on the moon with asteroids orbiting the moon. In fact a moon based sky hook is quite viable and allows land based manufacturing in low G with 0 cost exit from the Moons gravity well.
We'll know in about a decade what they intend to do. However there is one challenge left and as far as I can see only the ion engines have a chance to solve it right now. Namely the time and cost of getting to the asteroid belt and getting asteroids back to the Earth Moon orbit.
There has been an awful lot written about this, but our excursions around the solar system are one invention short of reality. What we need is a reactionless engine or an engine who's reaction mass to thrust ratio is so high that you can hold enough fuel for years of thrust.
None of which is compatible with solving the climate issue on the earth. But very compatible with getting a few very rich, very privileged, off the planet and living just below the van allen belts until there is time for the impact of the atmospheric CO2 to have worked itself to a standstill and for the requisite level of population to have died off.