Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!uupsi!pbs!pstinson
From: pstinson@pbs.org
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: best of all worlds
Message-ID: <10293.270c7434@pbs.org>
Date: 5 Oct 90 15:53:23 GMT
References: <10265.2708917a@pbs.org> <1017@dg.dg.com>
Organization: PBS:Public Broadcasting Service, Alexandria, VA
Lines: 25

In article <1017@dg.dg.com>, ahughes@dg-rtp.dg.com (Arch Hughes) writes:
>  
> Of what value is regular access to the moon over a space
> station?  Would there be a cost savings or greater scientific
> cabability?  If I want to set up a low gravity manufacturing
> or lab facility, does the moon's mass prohibit it as a
> satisfactory site (assuming a surface facility)?
> 
Lunar gravity is 1/6 G.  For some applications that may be low enough.  A
dedicated microgravity lab the size of ESA's Columbus can be set up for
specialized use in LEO.

The value of regular access to the moon is the resouces that can be mined
there.  They invite operations not possible from Earth orbit due to the
prohibitive costs of launching raw materials from the depths of Earth's gravity
well.  It requires less energy to launch from the moon.  Lunar regolith can be
hurled into space for shielding needed by colonies at L-5 or L-4 and the moon
itself, particularly the far side, is a great place for astronomical
observatories.  A telescope larger than Hubble could be operated easier from a
lunar outpost.  The real payoff would be a lunar farside radio observatory
which would use the whole mass of the moon to block out unwanted signals from
Earth, band width polution that is becoming an increasing problem.  

This just scratches the surface.  There is more growth potential at a lunar
base than there is on a space station.