SPS vs LSP

My personal review of Criswell's LSP plan indicated to me that it had a higher chance of success than straight SPS in the short run. I really like the idea that things stay put and don't fly around needing maintenence and orbital correction. Youhave to faceconcerns about anything in the thousands of tons range anywhere save the surface of the moon and L4, L5. It would be good to kick around some comparisons now that a few things have changed. I'm notconvinced that Criswell had the best plan of LSP development. Cheers, Thor

> I've spoken with David Criswell a few times, and he does mention the useof lunar resources for SPS on occasion, though I agree I've never seenhim make quantitative comparisons. I think from his perspective usingthe Moon directly makes things simpler and therefore easier to convinceothers about - which he may have some point on, since he got thispublished in the "Industrial Physicist" and testified to the US Senateabout it all last year.

> Arthur

Let's not neglect the issue of human vanity. Lunar stations are intimately tied to Criswell. Being an advocate of SPS would make him just one voice of many.

Granted this may not be an overriding feature but I certainly wouldn't discount ego from the calculation. Especially, since I see no merit of LPS when compared against SPS. Ego could in fact explain why loaded arguments are necessary.

TangoMan