Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!milano!uudell!loft386!wes
From: wes@loft386.uucp (Wes Peters)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: best of all worlds
Summary: But LLO is much easier to obtain than LEO
Message-ID: <1990Oct8.033542.27179@loft386.uucp>
Date: 8 Oct 90 03:35:42 GMT
References: <10265.2708917a@pbs.org> <1017@dg.dg.com> <1990Oct5.163422.25830@zoo.toronto.edu>
Organization: Lofty Pursuits Public Access Unix for Rapid City, SD USA
Lines: 26

In article <1990Oct5.163422.25830@zoo.toronto.edu>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
> It depends on what you want to do.  If epxloring the Moon is your priority,
> then yes, regular access to the Moon is better. :-)  The Moon is also a
> better place to do materials-intensive operations, since lunar dirt is
> cheap once you're there, while shipping materials to a space station is
> very expensive.
> 
In article <1017@dg.dg.com> ahughes@dg-rtp.dg.com (Arch Hughes) writes:
% ... 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)?

> Almost certainly, if really low gravity is what you want.  If access to
> vacuum and materials is more important, the gravity may be an asset,
> since many industrial processes are a pain to do in free fall.

On the other hand, if you have some way of creating fuel on the Lunar
surface, Low Lunar Orbit is much easier to obtain that Low Earth Orbit.
Both would, presumably, provide a suitable microgravity environment for
such edeavors as manufacturing fine ball bearings, optic fibers, and
optic filters.

-- 
	Wes Peters     wes@loft386      {bigtex, uunet}!loft386!wes

	Sail South Dakota... they'll never believe you on the coast!