Armada of Martian Probes Will Study the Planet, Inside and Out--but

bhn1700@... [spacesettlers] wrote:

> I am not opposed to developing the moon, but I would say using NEAs to
> develop the moon makes more sense. NEAs pass between the Earth and moon
> every year, which the small ones could be hauled into lunar orbit for
> use, also you can pull 'boulders' off of larger NEAs and drag them in as
> well.

Maybe you can -- IF everything comes together perfectly in a very narrow
launch window. If not -- if you're so much as a couple days late, or
you have any glitch in the operation -- then the rock you were planning
to mine moves right on past, and spends the next couple of years on the
other side of the Sun (possibly taking your very expensive equipment
with it). It's a logistical nightmare.

That's the big difference. There are (we believe) NEAs which have
essentially soft-landed on the Moon, and are now in a constantly close
1-month orbit around the Earth (on the surface of the Moon). Those seem
much easier to me.

> The gravity well of the moon is a disadvantage imo vs. the close
> passing small NEAs or boulders on large NEAs.

A very minor disadvantage. One only needs to look at the size of the
lunar module ascent stage, vs. the Saturn 5, to see that getting off the
Moon is not a major problem, even for 1960s rocket technology. And if
we started doing it on a large scale, we could build mass launchers or
an elevator to lift mass off the Moon without even needing propellant --
something that will never be practical for NEAs in free space.

Best,
- Joe