Xref: utzoo sci.space.shuttle:639 sci.space:5168
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!umd5!mimsy!aplcen!aplcomm!stdc.jhuapl.edu!jwm
From: jwm@stdc.jhuapl.edu (James W. Meritt)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.space
Subject: Re: Moon or Mars? Editorial in _Air & Space Smithsonian_
Message-ID: <211@aplcomm.UUCP>
Date: 8 Apr 88 20:37:23 GMT
References: <47032@sun.uucp> <1290@hubcap.UUCP> <4076@whuts.UUCP> <1022@thumper.bellcore.com> <48414@sun.uucp> <1384@silver.bacs.indiana.edu> <1481@bigtex.uucp>
Sender: news@aplcomm.UUCP
Reply-To: jwm@stdc.jhuapl.edu.UUCP (James W. Meritt)
Organization: The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory
Lines: 28

In article <1481@bigtex.uucp> james@bigtex.UUCP (James Van Artsdalen) writes:
>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?


I am afraid that I cannot envision a point which is both hidden from the
earth and hidden from the sun on the surface of the moon, unless you
mean in a hole.  Where did you mean?










Disclaimer: Individuals have opinions, organizations have policy.
            Therefore, these opinions are mine and not any organizations!
Q.E.D.
jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu 128.244.65.5