Xref: utzoo sci.space.shuttle:637 sci.space:5155
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!im4u!ut-sally!utastro!bigtex!james
From: james@bigtex.uucp (James Van Artsdalen)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.space
Subject: Re: Moon or Mars? Editorial in _Air & Space Smithsonian_
Message-ID: <1481@bigtex.uucp>
Date: 8 Apr 88 04:45:25 GMT
References: <47032@sun.uucp> <1290@hubcap.UUCP> <4076@whuts.UUCP> <1022@thumper.bellcore.com> <48414@sun.uucp> <1384@silver.bacs.indiana.edu>
Reply-To: james@bigtex.UUCP (James Van Artsdalen)
Organization: F.B.N. Software, Austin TX
Lines: 13

IN article <1384@silver.bacs.indiana.edu>, compton@silver.UUCP (David Compton) wrote:
> 	If you would think about it, a satellite could be in sunlight
> almost all the time(e.g.) a polar orbit.  This makes it a better alternative
> than the ground based nuclear plant.

I am not an astronomer, but it seems to me that if it is useful to place
an observatory on the far side of the moon so that Earth isn't radiating at
the telescope, it would also be useful to place the observatory to avoid the
Sun shining on it.  Is this not the case, or am I missing the benefit of
placing an observatory on the moon?
-- 
James R. Van Artsdalen   ...!ut-sally!uastro!bigtex!james    "Live Free or Die"
Home: 512-346-2444 Work: 328-0282; 110 Wild Basin Rd. Ste #230, Austin TX 78746