You have obviously not read the OpEd.
See para 6. My intent is exactly the opposite of what you accuse me of portending!
I am surprised at your statement.

Yes, I think the psychological qualms from people denigrating sub-orbital joyrides by the takers and offerors is going to be more forceful than potential lack of excess funds by the joyriders. It will last at least 1-2 years. It will be enough that this idea cannot close as a business case and will fold. The point-to-point travel extension (if that is what they portend, which I do not see) would also have similar fate - just not enough takers. Would I be willing to spend 250K on a few seconds of zero-G versus even a million dollar for a few day sojourn to the Moon if I had the funds? If NASA would just cancel the Lunar Gateway idea for now and concentrate on actually being on the Moon, using at least commercial reusable boosters, learning and teaching, other things like water-ice extraction can follow much sooner. And then the Lunar tourism. This would happen in 5-10 years, not in 1-2, so the COVID-19 impact may also not be fresh in people’s minds.

It was a typo on my part. I meant "national urgency" and forgot to correct it before sending it to The Space Review. It is for sure not an "emergency". Agree.

It was a typo on my part. I meant "national urgency" and forgot to correct it before sending it to The Space Review. It is for sure not an "emergency". Agree.

Reaching a conclusion of a “Third World allegiance” through a name in this day and age in US is either ignorant or bigoted. She actually lives somewhere in the Southern US. And BTW my name too would fit your criteria for the same, and I have been a US citizen for more than 30 years.
Besides, she is obviously trying to cajole US to do something fast to maintain our leadership. It is not a "naysaying" article.

I agree, Glenn.
If I could, I would remove the NASA motto: “Failure is Not an Option” and replace it with “Failure Is an Option”! Perhaps not quite that, but at least remove the first one!

Whether Trump/Pence have 2020 and 2024 in mind for elections for the five year to Moon challenge or not is immaterial. We need to be there as soon as possible and they have noticed that, which is a good thing, very propitious. This is the first time in a long time that an Administration has been keenly interested in doing what us rocket scientists/engineers want. Why do you look a gift horse in the mouth? It is a challenge. Let us attack it with enthusiasm not pessimism.

And we went to the Moon in 7-8 years in 60’s with the low level CFD/Structures/IT technologies available then and we cannot do this in less than five? With Falcon Heavy available? And others (New Gleen/Blue Moon especially) on horizon? When again are we going to have this synergy of so many favorable factors at the same time culminating into a real possibility for us? Moon is not the only goal. It will and can be the beginning – more science, more EP, more global defense, more planets and more about our origins, unless we ruin the whole beginning by nitpicking it to death! The glass is half full, not half empty! Let us help NASA by creating the public support.

Let us not get into this fruitless practice of attacking each other. Instead let us, together, compete with other countries as they will also land their folks on the Moon. This OpEd was actually written for The Daily Caller whose readership is general public, to garner public enthusiasm. So the brevity was needed as were non-technical aspects. Here it was lifted as is to be able to give TDC the acknowledgment. More details are available, if one wants them, in the articles mentioned above in one of my comments.

Sure the tanks are not ready as habitats. Sure the second stages are not ready, they do not even have Lunar legs or fuel storing conditions. Not now – but we do have five years. SLS can be redirected to concentrate on the upper stage, a potential political compromise. We will find solutions if the overriding physics are correct, the physics of ISP, DeltaV and propellant fraction obtained using multiple docking in LEO.

I think it can be done in less than four. Just do it, for goodness sake, even if we fail at times! Enough already. Enough pessimism. The best should not be the enemy of good.

Last week Bezos unveiled their plans, which include ISRU utilization, water extraction and tank repurposing (mentioned earlier). First step is to get there. I agree with him. Some people will want to do it due to competition from China, some for humanity. It does not matter for now. The first few steps are the same. Let us not blow this chance.

The proposal here is to just take Americans back to the Moon and bring them back safely within five years, as VP Pence directed us to do. Living there would have to come later. The use of tanks is a tertiary benefit that we should take advantage of. It would require some modifications to the upper stages of FH, BO or ICPS. I would imagine that that work could be farmed out to SLS folks who could primarily do that instead of the booster stage – sort of a political compromise.
Surely even bringing the astronauts back would require mods to whatever upper stage is chosen, which again NASA/SLS would do during the first five year.

Interesting point and I feel the same. I think FH will be used for next many years - as a player in the NASA plans. Bezos is a little dicey for several reasons.

VP Pence’s challenge is to just put American boots on the Lunar ground in five years. That can be done, and much cheaper than SLS.
Water extraction, using tanks as habitats etc are for subsequent and further developments - over next many years to follow, perhaps a decade or so. Start small. And build up on small successes.