From what I have read, the lunar base is far more economic than a “dick waving contest”. Dick waving contests traditionally are two (or more) aggressive human variables gunning to do something absurdly idiotic on a platform that does not progress, but ego driven for absolutely no use and typically is destructive. (see: political platforms) and/or any tech related workplace (two or more alpha programmer guys fight over something extraneously inefficient because they deem their way as “right”).
Disclaimer: I do not claim any expertise in any of these topics. This is all speculation on mediums of macroeconomic, microeconomics, ecological, and spatial advantages of a moon base, assuming the stance of the devil and their advocacy via frugality, efficiency, and common sense of previous methods of trade and travel past, present, and speculative of the future.
For reliable success of lengthy travel there has always been posts (Oregon trail, trading ports of ships, planes for refueling and maintenance, even our space games there are floating trading stations when things are too far). A side advantage of a lunar base would be an emergency pitstop: parts are only 3 days away instead of 6 months. Additionally, the moon could serve as a trading hub between Earth and Mars (cit.). Communications between Mars and Earth will be verifiably be more feasible and reliable with satellites and towers (singularly supported with the energy the moon can provide). The travel distances for both Mars and the Earth would be relatively small than the long-trip to Mars and Earth for interstellar trade. The moon can be the base for resources of both planets and make the trip very short and the strain on the aircrafts a lot less strenuous. To do this, though, we need to have interest. Everyone assumes that the moon itself isn’t going to garner resources. It is all about the picture; something Musk has shown to be a visionary for.
In terms of energy, solar power will be more effective on the moon, especially at the southern pole. It could be enough to solve the world’s future energy needs via moon-extracted helium-3 for resources to develop the tech of renewable energy for Earth, Mars, and the moon (cit., the Artemis Project). ~40 some years, scientists have been working to create nuclear power from nuclear fusion rather than nuclear fission. Helium-3 has been produced on Earth as a by-product of the maintenance of nuclear weapons (remember that pissing contest I was talking about?). The moon does not have an atmosphere, which means it effortlessly produces helium-3 as there is nothing to stop it from being absorbed by the lunar soil. There is an estimation of ~1,100,000 metric tons of helium-3 on the surface of the moon down to a depth of a few meters (cit., cit. 2). This helium-3 could potentially be extracted by heating the lunar dust to around 600 degrees C, before bringing it back to the Earth, reusing on the moon for energy, and eventual Mars to fuel a new generation of nuclear fusion power plants. Even if this isn’t enough, it is still land and territory to set up these resources and bases. I am not even touching on the basis of water. In the instance we’re able to get sufficient machinery and robotics there, mining for the water may be something doable with the energy harnessed. These are big investments at first but all leaps of progress are. Elon Musk’s decision to invest in space exploration with us barely able to use reusable rockets, he sees the bigger picture: other than it being profitable, it invites grand-scale tech advancement since we are inevitably approaching peak oil, climate change, and resource depletion. Even with profit out of the picture, water may be even scarce on Earth given climate change - we may have to do this not because it’s cost effective, but it may be just for our survival (cit.).
Capitalism will also be a part of space and the generate the necessity for exploration. See: the existence of SpaceX, a brain child that has been born of capitalism and generating more capital to continue exploration. Elon Musk is capitalizing on these possibilities as they come because space exploration slow due to lack of capital. Once ahold of these resources and allowance of breathing room to build, this capital engine will start this. Elon Musk’s projected plan is to create more space involvement in everything we do (as I was saying before, the Internet constellation). Martians will be dependent on trade with Earth paralleling early America dependent on England. It will need interstellar-trade to grow (as Jeff Greason eloquently talks about). It’s speculated that Martians first product will be rocket fuel.
The lunar base will also have lower gravity will make it much, much cheaper as a launch site than Earth, once an industrial infrastructure has been established. The start-up cost will be very high (and for those who understand business, know this), but in the long term it will be profitable, especially once the price of metals and such start rising dramatically on Earth since we are running out of easily accessible mining locations. The actual problem isn’t entirely what to make use what we have. The short term consequences will be determining whose laws apply where.
American laws apply to American bases for example, but what happens when an international crew mans a lunar base? That’s the genuine question and the actual formative problem - not necessarily “What are we going to do with the moon” but “What rules do we need now?” Once self-sufficient cities start popping up on the moon and Mars, the question will become very relevant. The current UN outer space treaty is hopelessly idealistic, claiming that “space belongs to everyone”, as soon as space colonization becomes economically realistic and more importantly, profitable, it’s going to be a mess.
