Mars and Island One

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Ed Minchau"
wrote:

> I agree that planetary chauvinism is responsible for people
> irrationally discounting the idea of orbital settlements.
> However, we cannot discount the idea of "planetary" settlement
> merely based upon orbitals' not-so-obvious advantages.
>
> What is appropriate or necessary depends upon the application.
> The range of applications may be more limited on the moon vs.
> orbital, but that doesn't mean that there are no applications that
> make the moon more appropriate than orbital. For instance, if the
> application is "mining lunar regolith", then a settlement on the
> moon is more appropriate than an orbital settlement.
>
> I personally believe that orbital settlements are the way to go,
> but due to the requirements of their construction (ie most raw
> material must be off-earth to begin with), such large-scale
> settlements in orbit will likely not become reality until we
> already have a base on the moon.

Ed, I agree with you as well. Basing on the moon is a precursor to
Habitat construction. The initial base may be added onto with
marginal new functions but we'll soon get into a chicken-egg
scenario.

For the base to really expand it will need a purpose. A research
base on the moon won't grow robustly enough to develop into an
economic center for there really isn't much on the moon in way of
economic assets or markets.

There is however an attractive economic region in cislunar space. To
realize the benefits of that region will require further development
of the moon base in order to supply raw materials. The cislunar
economic driver will allow the moonbase to add marginal economic
uses because they serve the cislunar activity and so the moonbase
can grow beyond just a company town.

To realize the potential of lunar development needs a cislunar
driver. On its own the moon offers few economic attractions.

TangoMan