He's definitely talking about why it's been so long since we've had another manned mission to the moon. My money is on the fact that it is so expensive and that the scientific returns are just not great enough to warrant that amount of investment, and that robotic exploration is a much more viable option until we can make space more accessible. What I want to know is why on earth (or on the moon for that matter) haven't we had a robotic rover up there when we've already had a bunch go to mars...get a damn nuclear powered brute on the surface drilling for useful minerals or measuring the availability of helium-3, go private sector lolol
Right or wrong the USA and the world developed the old "been there done that" attitude. So far there have been no perceived economic benefits to establishing a presence on the moon outside of the scientific community. There has been discussion about making it a tourist destination but the cost of transporting tourists to and from the moon keep that idea on the back burner.
Until there is a reason that we absolutely need to be there governments won't spend the kind of money it takes to establish bases on the moon. Now if someone finds boulder sized chunks of platinum or gold sitting on or just below the surface people will be clamoring to go there and won't care about the risks involved.
Absolutely concur. But it will be interesting to see the reaction of the public, and all those shocked senators ("I'm shocked to find gambling in this establishment!!") when a red flag with yellow stars is planted on Luna Firma. Maybe they'll do it right at Tranquility Base... wouldn't that be something?
Or maybe we will get off our duffs and reach out once more.