Asteroid Mining

> If NEOs come first, I'd say the odds of us subsequently ignoring
the > moon are still pretty close to zero, if for no other reason
than (as
> others have pointed out) time is money.
> ...
> Conversely, if asteroidal resources become available for use in
HEO,
> that vastly improves the logistics of setting up a lunar base.
> Whichever happens first, the other will probably follow fast on the
> heels, since either is a tremendous enabler for the other.

Asteroidal resources in HEO certainly do make it easier to set up a
moon base. But don't they equally make it easier to go after more
NEOs? And if it was easier to go after NEOs first, why wouldn't it
stay that way until the targets of easy opportunity are depleted or
until the sheer amount of mass demanded exceeds what's available in
low-delta-vee orbits with convenient lauch windows?

One possible answer to that:

If mass drivers and their energy storage systems have a good enough
mass to power ratio on the relevant scales, you can get a two-fer.
You send your asteroid-bound payload on a gravitational-assist
trajectory past the moon, and you send a mass driver and a lunar
payload too. At perilune, the mass driver separates the payloads,
flinging the asteroid one forward (or the lunar one backward) with a
relative velocity such that the lunar payload winds up stationary
relative to the moon. In effect, it saves you the delta-vee
involved in fighting the lunar gravity down to that point, *and* it
saves you the reaction mass for the amount of delta-vee that the
asteroid payload gains. Then the lunar payload uses rockets the
rest of the way. If you had perfect precision, you could set the
lunar payload down on the surface. Realistically, I expect you
could save a large fraction of the HEO-to-lunar delta-vee.