Full G on the Moon or other small bodies?

--in spacesettlers, "Combs, Mike" wrote:
> We've eliminated the mass-driver and the L-2 mass-catcher.

????. Please elaborate.

> Careful, here. Remember the original argument was that it was wrong
> to assert that living on the moon meant living in 1/6 G because we
> could build a rotating torus on the moon. It would presumably rotate
> at 5/6th the rate of the orbital one in order to bring the gravity up
> to a full 1 G. In which case both structures would have to contend
> with the same loading.

I was thinking about the ring not just being supported and resting on
the ground but also on the tilted side too. That way the structural
load of the sidewards 5/6 G on the ring would go to an outer track and
not the ring itself. Admittedly, this means that an outer track would
have to be built able to withstand this load. Perhaps a crater rim
could be used.

> If by "dome" you mean some artificial structure, I don't see any
> reason to assume a preexisting artificial structure in the lunar
> case, but disallow it in the orbital case.

An artificial structure in orbit capable of enclosing an entire
Stanford Torus would have to be quite big. The radiation shield for an
ST is 9 million tons, one for the facility to enclose an ST being
built would have to be...?

> But why presuppose settlements and machine shops already existing on
> the moon, but not in orbit? I can arbitrarily decide to assume just
> as much in the way of functional, nearby, well-established
> settlements or industries in orbital space as you seem to assume for
> the moon.
>
> Sorry to harp on this, but I've noticed this tendency with most
> space advocates. Someone will comment on how much "easier"
> accomplishing a certain task will be on the moon or on Mars in
> comparison to doing it in orbit. I'll ask why, and the answer will
> frequently reveal that the advocate is assuming a fully-functional
> and highly capable human community is nearby in the case of the moon
> or Mars, but for some reason disallowing such a possibility in the
> case of orbital space.

It all depends on assumptions of how early in the settlement of space
the above structures would be built. Early on in the settlement of
space, having *any* kind of facility/settlement anywhere in space is
going to be quite an accomplishment.

The moon, with its supply of materials already there and ready to be
used, allows it to be settled in a much more incremental fashion than
settlement(s) in orbit. Machine tools, for example, when flown to a
moon base can be used to make more machine tools, because of the
metals there. An enclosure flown to the moon can contain construction
equipment to build more enclosures, and so on.

Because of this, the Moon will probably have the first large-scale
settlement, capable of manufacturing its own items and being largely
self-sufficient, and providing a reasonably secure place to have
infrastructure in space, and to export this to other parts of space.

Note that I am not a "planetary chauvinist". The Moon just offers, as
of right now, the best combination of resources and location. Further
on, that could and would shift elsewhere.