"It is not enough to "assume" commercial & scientific interest in the moon. The "interest" has to be willing to pay the actual costs. It clearly is not. And that's why, 30 years after Apollo 17, we're not on the moon. What could possibly be clearer????"

The reason we are not already on the Moon is because NASA has failed to take steps that would lead to this. It's not because investors will not invest in some enterpise which has a possiblity of a good return on their dollars invested. Nor is the Moon uninteresting to scientists or that scientists are uncapable of getting funding for "things which interest them".
Now, the world does not depend exclusively on NASA and US- it's merely that in comparison NASA and US has had significantly more resources to spend on space related activities. Japan if it ever crawls out of present situation, it has lots of interest in the Moon, Europe is currently funding lunar missions, and China has some interest in doing something on the Moon.
Recently, NASA is showing more interest in doing something in regards to the Moon, despite Operation Black Hole (ISS).
I predict that within a few years (certainly less than 10) that the NASA, the gov agency, will lose both the Shuttle and ISS as targets to funnel billions of tax dollars into. This probably will mean that NASA will go back to what it's suppose to do and this will also most likely include lunar missions/projects.
-gb