Adam said: > > G. Harry Stine proposed something like this back in the late 70's, but > > he was recommending satellites. It seems to me that satellites would > > be cheaper and more efficient, as well as easier to build, control and > > maintain.
Rich replied: > However, solar cells are just about the only thing it's possible to > easily produce using resources on the Moon. You then just have to > launch a small factory to make them, rather than launching huge numbers > of them from Earth to synchronous orbit. Exactly! I haven't read Criswell's article all the way through (yet), but it sounds like he's trying to propose something we could actually build with real world funding. Using the moon as a platform is a way to keep the cost down. (Although, in all fairness, I should mention that his proposal involves thirty to forty lunar bases and a network of transmission satellites, so it wouldn't be small or cheap, except in a relative way.) > Rich, who thinks that exploiting near-Earth asteroids and comets is the > best way to industrialise space. That's certainly a good idea. But I wonder how the governments of earth would feel about people moving those huge gigatons of rock, metal, and ice into near earth orbits, and dropping payloads into the atmosphere. Economically, it could bring billions, but there might be a lot of public fear. Or maybe it would all be too far away to bother people. Who knows, eh? Kevin Street
