Lunatics vs Rockheads: the battle continues

I'm not even going to address the supposed danger from impacting stuff. See
the NASA Ames Space Colony studies for the truly miniscule hazards, and why
they can largely be safely ignored, with some simple common-sense
engineering.

George wrote:
>>-- With asteroid materials you can make better radiation shields
than can ever possibly be made on the moon

Andy Goddard
>Absolute nonsense. Bulldoze a couple of metres of Lunar
regolith over your habitat and check your dosimeter. Next-to-zilch.
Your argument is utter rubbish.

How about gravity? Are we assuming either that it'll be possible to live in
.15G and be healthy, or are we assuming crew rotation, and just live with
the different conditions and the increasing health problems they might cause
until the crew has to bail out and go home?

>>-- the moon is extremely low in both volatiles and metals making
mere survival there a big gamble in itself
>
>No. While the overall % of volatiles might be low, the localised
concentrations of those volatiles (like the predicted lunar polar ice)
might well be more than sufficient for an energetic programme of
development.

And you have to soft-land at the poles (or all the equipment to get to the
poles, get the water ices, and get them to where you're using them) means
even more delta-V is required, over the amount to get to equatorial landing
sites, which is already greater than that needed to get to & back from an
NEA -which has better resources.
Either a metallic type, which means poor ices (about what the Moon will have
accessible, probably, or a CC asteroid, which means lots of ices and less
metals -again about what the Moon has.
Pick a stony asteroid, and get the best of both, and better than the Lunar
resources, and easier to get to, mine & process, and get them back to a
user/buyer.
The Lunar polar craters are called "localised concentrations"? what are NEAs
called, when they can be mountain sized and up to 40% ices by mass? (and
accessible with vastly less delta-V)

>Additionally, as the impact history of the Moon shows, there may
well be metals from nickel-iron asteroids spread across the surface.

Yes, it's called regolith. Tiny droplets, scattered across the entire
surface. This melted from impacting asteroids, which may be up to 80% Ni/Fe
by mass, and can be reached with less delta-V, and greater access to power,
easier processing, etc -before they've splashed themselves across the Lunar
hemisphere.

>You'd be better promoting surveys than issuing abject dismissals
to suit some personal argument. Try taking your blinkers off.

Likewise, abjectly dismissing information about the NEAs in favor of the
Moon.
And yes, I am promoting surveys. Go to NEAs instead of back to the Moon. The
same upper stage which could send a lander to the Moon, could probably send
landers to 2 NEAs, and we get more samples back for the same mass thrown to
an NEA than an equivalent mass landed on the Moon if we want to do a sample
return.
Either way, we'd get more info about better resources, in a better location
to get at and use them, by going to NEAs.