SpaceX Dragon spacecraft for low cost trips to the Moon.

But then you start chasing your tail. The weight of landing gear and aerodynamic controls, requires more propellant mass, which requires larger tanks, which requires more thermal protection mass, which raises gross weight, which means more mass for landing gear and structure. Which leads to so on and so forth. So you either wind up with a monster like the STS or an impractically small payload (like the X-37B most likely).

That is the intent. To get the first human "foothold" out of LEO, to learn how to live in situ while still being able to get help from back home. Besides there are useful things you can do on the Moon. Astronomy, other science, and industrial process that are hard/impossible to do here (free hard vacuum! just open a window).

That is the intent. To get the first human "foothold" out of LEO, to learn how to live in situ while still being able to get help from back home. Besides there are useful things you can do on the Moon. Astronomy, other science, and industrial process that are hard/impossible to do here (free hard vacuum! just open a window).

Right now all we got planned is another flag planter, and photo-op mission, which we have very little to learn from.

Astronomy from the lunar surface isn't a great plan.

The moon isn't a Hard Vaccuum.

I'm not saying we don't need the moon. I'm saying if we're going to use it, we need to use it, not spend trillions of dollars on another commercial.

Not really, the first missions are to establish the "base camp", learn how to live and work there and lay the infrastructure for expanding, to include industrial and commercial exploitation. It is/was/will be a persistent presence, as long as the money and politicians stick with it.

In addition the TerraMrs' comment, the far side of the Moon will make an excellent radio telescope position because it blocks the "noise" from Earth.

Its hard vacuum from an industrial perspective, and for about 99% of scientific need. Creating a similar "near-vacuum" on Earth is both energy intensive and expensive.

All right, at what point are you arguing just to argue?

No, it doesn't Have to be a dish, but that's the most efficient design, because it focuses a large collection area on a relatively small antenna.

Yes, there are other designs, but regardless of configuration, you still have to get it there, land it in one peice, and set it up. On the far side of the moon, I might add, which means out of radio contact with the rest of humanity.

Or, we could save a lot of trouble, and orbit it at the libration point like I suggested.

It would still be limited when the moon is pointed at the sun (You think Earth puts out interference?) but at least it wouldn't have half the sky blocked by the moon.

Craters make very good short wave antenna dishes. Place a few around the Moon and scatter a bunch of long wave arrays and you have created a telescope with the angular resolution of 3,400 kms (the diameter of the Moon) with interferometry. The problem with that is, the craters are pointed up, which means in opposite directions clear across the surface of the moon. Remember, dishes are directional, so with the seperation you suggest, 1) they can't point at the same target, for interferometry, and 2) only one can be shielded from interference from the Earth.

The relay system would work better for a sattelite than a fixed surface instilation. Oh, and I've been there.

Stationkeeping can be maintained by current technology, we already have space telescopes, they handle it just fine. We don't have ANY lunar surface instilations, nor resources, so those would have to be developed.

The estimates from the value of minerals in shadowed craters on the Moon stems from the LCROSS mission results that showed precious metals within the impacted crater such as gold and silver:

SCIENCE -- October 21, 2010 at 2:05 PM EDT
Moon Blast Reveals Lunar Surface Rich With Compounds.
BY: JENNY MARDER
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/201 ... water.html

Here mission scientist Peter Schultz says the amount of silver would not be enough for mining, but does not mention the amount of gold:

October 21, 2010 | Contact: Richard Lewis |
NASA-engineered collision spills new Moon secrets
http://news.brown.edu/pressreleases/2010/10/lcross

The amount of gold is potentially startlingly high. LCROSS suggest it could be as high as 1.6%, thousands of times higher than what might be available in even the richest gold mines on Earth:

REPORT
LRO-LAMP Observations of the LCROSS Impact Plume.
Science, 22 October 2010: Vol. 330 no. 6003 pp. 472-476
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6003/472.abstract

The full-text of the article is not free on the site. This Google cache page though has a HTML version that shows the abundance amounts for the various chemicals detected:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/s ... clnk&gl=us

If the actual amount is anywhere close to this amount then this would provide mining opportunities for gold even when you take into account the much greater transportation costs for getting it from the Moon.
What HAS to be done, like yesterday, is to send lander missions to confirm those startling amounts indicated by the LCROSS mission. The LCROSS readings for gold are only upper bounds. It needs to be determined if the actual amounts are really close to that. If so, then this is a real game changer. People have been asking what is the real "killer app" for space travel? IF the LCROSS results are true then you have it right there, lunar mining. Even more, this is in fact a killer app for beyond Earth orbit space travel as well!

Bob Clark

Today's media alert says the new company "will overlay two critical sectors — space exploration and natural resources — to add trillions of dollars to the global GDP. This innovative start-up will create a new industry and a new definition of 'natural resources.'"
"That sounds like asteroid mining," Christopher Mims writes on MIT Technology Review's "Mims' Bits" blog. "Because what else is there in space that we need here on earth? Certainly not a livable climate or a replacement for our dwindling supplies of oil."
Parabolic Arc's Doug Messier, meanwhile, writes that the venture will be an "extraterrestrial mining company."
Diamandis has said on more than one occasion that he's intrigued by the idea of digging into asteroids, for materials ranging from water (for fuel as well as for astronauts) to precious metals such as platinum. The Verge points to a TED talk in 2005 where Diamandis discusses his dream, while Forbes magazine has brought up the subject with him more than once in the past few months.