If it was profitable, private investment would do it without the need for massive government subsidies.
It is not, therefore you will only get more crony-capitalist, government funded boondoggles.
A "private" moonbase would be Solyndra x 100.
The Moon Treaty provides that the Moon and its natural resources are the common heritage of mankind and the harvesting of those resources is forbidden except through an international regime established to govern the exploitation of such resources when it becomes feasible to do so.
While we never ratified it it has become accepted as international law because we never directly opposed it. I would have been a lot more impressed if Gingrich had said he would openly defy it rather than his ridiculous promise that will fail miserably.
Would you kindly read the proposal? One of the very things that Gingrich is trying to avoid by restructuring NASA is government boondoggles.
Are bridges profitable? Roads? National defense? None of these things are profitable for private enterprise to finance. But we all benefit immensely from these things being financed out of all of our pockets via the government.
Handouts for deadbeats form the core of our budget problems. This nation financed all sorts of exploration and "unprofitable" development for 200 years without driving itself to the brink. And all that exploration and development profited us handsomely but in too long a term for an individual investor to realize his profits.
Just like the railroads that crossed our great continent right?
You are Right. SARC/
See fantasy here.
http://www.virgingalactic.com/