>So far the American system has been for the government to fund basic research and private industry to commercialize it.

In that case SLS definitely needs to be cancelled.

We are well beyond "basic research" into how a Moon program could be executed, private companies are already doing it and the only question left is how to commercialize it.

Sure, I agree, but the person I was responding to was not talking about SLS specifically. They said that a moon program should be strictly up to commercial interests to pursue and that the government shouldn't purse one at all.

I agree with that assessment, neither NASA nor the country has the money nor time to waste on another public Moon program. There is no justifiable reason for another Apollo.

Leave it to the commercial world, and if they can't figure out a sustainable business model then it simply isn't meant to be (yet?).

You not agreeing with the reasons is not the same as there being "no justifiable reason" for another moon program. There absolutely are justifiable reasons and those reasons have worked out very well for the U.S. in the past. And as to whether we have the money for it, the U.S. is the wealthiest it has ever been and certainly much wealthier than we were in the 60s.

>There absolutely are justifiable reasons and those reasons have worked out very well for the U.S. in the past.

Apollo quickly lost funding and popular support once the Cold War in space was effectively over. Space Shuttle ran on its fumes, and it had to be designed partially as a warplane in order to get additional funds from USAF that NASA couldn't get otherwise. SLS is an extension of that.

Also, we're living in 2025, not 1965. The reasons of the past do not translate perfectly to today.

>And as to whether we have the money for it, the U.S. is the wealthiest it has ever been and certainly much wealthier than we were in the 60s.

We are also literally many trillions in debt. There are many things we should be doing and arguably none of that involves another Moon program just for the sake of it. Been there, done that; we don't have the money.

In 2024 we spent $1.5T via Social Security so that 70 million people could be economically unproductive. We're a wealthy country that can afford many little dalliances to expand our understanding of the natural world (which so far has been a prerequisite to human flourishing).