Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ames-lm.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!security!genrad!grkermit!masscomp!clyde!floyd!harpo!seismo!hao!ames-lm!al
From: al@ames-lm.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.space
Subject: Re: Terraforming vs. Space Stations --> moon vs. asteroids
Message-ID: <129@ames-lm.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 24-Jan-84 13:35:07 EST
Article-I.D.: ames-lm.129
Posted: Tue Jan 24 13:35:07 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 27-Jan-84 08:35:49 EST
References: <15494@sri-arpa.UUCP>
Organization: NASA-Ames Research Center, Mtn. View, CA
Lines: 16

I think asteroids are a great place to build things, but the moon
will undoubtedly be developed first.  The reason is that Lunar
oxygen could be 8/9 ths of the weight of the fuel for an O2/H2
orbital transfer vehicle based at the space station.  
I saw a presentation by (I believe) Lockheed at the 81 Princeton
Conference on Space Manufacturing that indicated a positive ECONOMIC
return for lunar oxygen with moderate LEO (Low Earth Orbit) to 
GEO (Geosynchronous Earth Orbit) traffic in the 90's or so.  There
was a paper in one of the aerospace professional magazines a few
months ago with a similar conclusion.

I suspect that we'll have definit plans and funding for a lunar
oxygen mine before 2000, work may even have started.  I'm afraid
the asteroids will have to wait for solar sails for profitability,
so lets all pull for the World Space Foundation (they're building
a solar sail).