models support NEO material deposits on the Moon

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, Joe Strout wrote:
>
> On 5/29/13 10:55 AM, brooksn wrote:
>
> > Any work done on the lunar surface, except the poles, is disadvantaged
> > by the lunar day/night cycle.
>
> Almost. I'd say any work done on the lunar surface, except the poles,
> relying solely on solar power, and requiring continuous power for more
> than two weeks at a time, is disadvantaged by the lunar day/night cycle.
>
> Any work done on asteroids is disadvantaged by very (VERY!) long trip
> times, infrequent launch windows, and occasionally being on the other
> side of the solar system (including communiations blackouts when on the
> other side of the Sun, unless we set up a relay network).
>
> So there's pros and cons to each. Mike is probably smart not to take a
> bet on which comes first. But I'm going to advocate for the Moon a bit
> more, because I think it's being needlessly overlooked.

But if we capture small asteroids already on a near miss with Earth and bring them into lunar orbit all the cons you listed go away. And if prove that one can be captured and mined, then we can capture 100 te same way.

> > My money is on the asteroids, since NASAs small asteroid capture for
> > lunar orbit is currently their next goal for humans in space.
>
> True.
>
> > And James Cameron along with other investors with lots of money are behind an
> > asteroid mining venture. Whereas the moon has neither, at this time.
>
> Well, the Moon's not entirely without interest -- Bigelow has expressed
> an interest in putting bases there. Mining, not so much. But is this
> because (and Cameron and others) have looked at the PGMs on the Moon
> and decided they're not worth the trouble? I don't think so. I think
> it's because they don't know that there ARE any PGMs on the Moon
> (whereas we do know that many asteroids contain them).
>
> Of course, we still don't know for sure that there are PGMs on the Moon.
> But the new study suggests that there should be, in quite accessible
> locations too. It seems foolish not to at least find out.
>
> If we do confirm the existence of this material on the Moon, I will be
> greatly surprised if some or all of the asteroid mining ventures don't
> shift direction and go for this bountiful low-hanging fruit first.
>
> Best,
> - Joe

I think Bigelow is interested in space generally and his habitats everywhere specifically. I don't see the advantage in the moon over captured lunar orbiting asteroids. Given everything it takes to do both it seems the lunar asteroids should beat the moon every time.
Brooks