> The same can be said for Mars. Further, there is the mistaken idea
that we
> don't need to go back, because we went there, and what did we find?
Rocks.

Of course that is all we found, but all rocks are not the same.
Humans have only penetrated down 2 meters into the lunar surface in
about a dozen places. Imagine if we assumed that the earth only
contained what we drilled down in a dozen places? If I walked out my
back door, I would only find sand. (central florida, south of mouse
town). This sand has silica, titanium oxide, and not a lot of water
right now.

>
> >-A visible goal that everyone on Earth can look to.
>
> People don't see it as a place we need to go to.
> I've seen time & again how people's eyes glaze over,

One thing with a visible goal is people can actually SEE it. Thinking
of the average American, they are clueless. Few of them can find
Bosnia or Kuwait on a map, and we have troops living and dying there.
Hell, some of them cannot find CANADA on a map!

Picture yourself on a TV interview and the bimbette asks where are you
planning on building you colony. Is it easier to get the idea across
"The moon, middle left." or "Diemos, it is a small moon about mars,
which right now is in the Sagitarious ..." And if you cannot explain
it to people, your chances of getting support is zip.

>
> >Now, what benefits of going to the moon?
> >-Metals (Fe, Ti, Al)
> >-Gases (O2, He3)
> >-Water
>
> Water? Where, at the poles? Far better to go to an NEA or Diemos for
water.
> Lower propulsive requirements to get back from Diemos or an NEA than
from
> our Moon, and it can use more efficient rockets to do it, since
you're not
> lifting off a big body.
> Better quality metals at an NEA, too. Lunar regolith is comparable
to what
> an asteroid mine would throw away as useless tailings. The Moon is
called
> the slagpile of the solar system.

Again, we have only explored two meters of the regolith, that's
NOTHING! You say NEA are better sources of metals, look at the
pictures taken of Eros, looks a lot like the pictures taken of a
certain nearby object.

The point is, we will not know what we have at either location until
we go dig it up. Personally, I do not understand how we can assume
there is NO water on the moon (except at only choice locations) but
everyone KNOWS that certain asteroids and comets are slap-full of the
wet stuff. Hey folks, its the same outerspace. If a tiny little rock
out in the middle of the solar system has water, then one of the
largest bodies (fifth largest in the inner system) has GOT to have
water somewhere. And good minerals. And Carbonacious (sp?) deposits.

Finally, where do you think all those craters and marks came from on
the moon? From NEA's hitting the surface. On earth, some our best
nickle deposits in areas that asteroids have hit.

> The only thing Luna is good for is near term source of rock. This is
only
> good for low-grade metal ores, and O2. As soon as anybody opens up
Diemos or
> an NEA, Luna is out of business.
>
> >-Room to build and grow
>
> On the Moon? in .15G? Worse than living on Mars.

Please. Let's pick Eros, the asteroid we know the most about. It is
WAY away from earth most of the time. It is really hard to sell to
customers when you are on the other side of the solar system. .15G is
a concern. I would not want my kid to be the first one born in that,
but the gravity on NEA's is essentially zip! Besides, all the
manufacturing practices we have experience with are designed to work
only in a gravitational field. Yes, we can make alloys of alluminum
and lead, but we cannot sort iron from slag.

So many people here are so focused on NEA's when we have one big ol'
NEA right here in orbit around earth. Just walk outside and look up.

Sean Masters

From:
To:
Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2001 10:55 PM
Subject: [spacesettlers] Re:(TGD) Moon argument Response

[snikt]
> Please. Let's pick Eros, the asteroid we know the most about. It is
> WAY away from earth most of the time. It is really hard to sell to
> customers when you are on the other side of the solar system. .15G is
> a concern. I would not want my kid to be the first one born in that,
> but the gravity on NEA's is essentially zip! Besides, all the
> manufacturing practices we have experience with are designed to work
> only in a gravitational field. Yes, we can make alloys of alluminum
> and lead, but we cannot sort iron from slag.
>

*Exactly* because gravity is negligible in Eros, it is much easier to
install a rotating habitat with 1 g gravity in the surface of that rock;
essentially, you would need just a kind of mooring mast coupling
magnetically, with no friction, to one of the poles of the colony. Or put
your habitat in a synchronous orbit a few kilometres away, an commuting to
the asteroid in a few minutes whenever you want to get some minerals.

On the other hand, although Moon has a low gravity, it is not negligible,
and if you plan to build a rotating habitat in its surface to get normal
gravity, then you would need a massive bearing system with wheels and
constant energy input for supplying friction losses. That would be
expensive, and so most probably you would opt for building a static habitat
with the low 0.15 g gravity instead.

Anyway, this discussion is a bit academic. As many of the other list mates,
I believe that probably asteroid colonization, Moon colonization and Mars
colonization, normal-gravity, low gravity and microgravity colonization will
be tried at the same time; then we can see which one will best succeed. I
think that because space colonization will be a reality only if launch costs
drops by two orders of magnitude or so, and in that paradisiacal scenario
anyone could get into space with his/her "colonization kit" and go to
anywhere he or she would like to. Quoting Heinlein imperfectly "in LEO
you're halfway from anywhere in the Solar System", or something.

[snikt]
> Sean Masters
[snikt]

Lucio Coelho