--Ken you need to go back ... into a debate. --

Don't worry Chris, you can always have a vigourous debate with me, and I'll try to keep it clean if you will.

There is a caveat, though, and that is that you are associated via your associations with certain broad categories, such as the Mars Society, and when broad generalizations are made (Mars First, Mars en Directe, Zubrinistas and others I won't mention), you can be unfortunately painted with the same brush intended for others, be you guilty of whatever bad behaviour is being deplored or not. Consequently, when I use such terms, I hope you can distinguish whether you're intended to be incorporated or not.

By the same token, I can see why folks may try to associate me in some way with EPG. Neither of us is too hip on Mars, we've both got reasons to go back to the Moon (though not all the same).

--You mentioned the concept of protecting a telescope form the sun's warmth by putting it in a deep walled crater, well as Nick has pointed out this defeats the propose of having the telescope on the Moon.--

Yes and no. Polar craters offer cryogenic properties (no direct sunlight, ever. Energy from what, starlight and conduction through the ground?) that are important for things like infrared. Less machinery is better early on, and we're going to be down in there anyway looking for hydrogen (fingers crossed for water, but it's really no more certain than life on Mars).

Introduce concepts like doming a smaller "black" crater nearby, laying some pipe, and vent your systems' heat into that one, naturally liberating whatever volatiles are in the smaller one while your scopes and base operate smoothly and coolly nearby.

Most folks don't realize that there's enough "bio" chemicals in a cubic meter of lunar regolith to make two ham sandwiches and sodas. It's kinda tough to get to, but it's there. Establish a base of operations at a strategic site like the South Pole, near the Peak (actually more a crater rim) of Eternal Light, and energy and temperature become much less of an issue. Battery storage and temperature swings are much easier to deal with.

There are a lot of really good reasons to establish a presence on the Moon, whether EPG agrees with them or not.

-The Aitken Basin is believed to be one of if not the biggest impact in the Solar System. It is strongly believed by the scientific community (if I may use that term) that it punctured the crust and exposed the mantle beneath. It is a unique scientific opportunity right next door, and while it may not qualify semantically as comparative planetology, when you believe that the Moon is OF the Earth...dang!

-The abovementioned Peaks of Eternal Light. You know why. Put solar panels on towers (those really cool ones that are like 8" tall untill extended to some ridiculous length like 20' - lunar engineering is going to be some wicked fun!) and you're pretty much assured 24/7/365 electrical power. Show me any cost benefit analysis you want, the strategic value of that is enormous. It cannot be denied.

-Relative thermal stability. All of a sudden you don't have to design for two-week mega-hot, two-week frigid-cold. It's all of a sudden not so expensive. And if you're venting your heat to a black crater, boom, multiple levels of redundancy.

-There's a lot of cool astronomical stuff in the Southern Sky. I agree it's not a great spot NEO stuff, but it's not useless either. Besides, EPG may want to alienate the astronomers, but I think that's a bad strategy. They've got a lot of great reasons to go there, and I want to capture some of their cash flows for space-based projects. Inclusiveness, my brother, that's what it's all about.

--Any crater that would offer protection form the sun removes the scope from the elliptic viewing area thus out of more than 95% of the possible impactor detection game...--

I'm with you there. But you're still talking about at minumum 5% utility, so we might as well while we're there doing other stuff. Given the existence of some kind of organized (you know what I mean) NEO Watch, it doesn't make sense Not to have something there as part of a larger program of operations.

--L1 or L2 detection systems doesn't have the problems the Moon has or the high cost. Any shielding doesn't have to be attached in such away as to easily conduct heat into the scope it self. This is a design issue and Tom or Gary or some other bright person can come up with three or four ways of blocking heat.

By the time you had a single setup up and running on the Moon you could have three or four orbital scopes up and running at a lower cost. Which do you think the US Congress would buy?--

I'm clearly betting on a small intial scope, hopefully human-placed (and inspected before "turned on"!) but it could be done robotically, slowly evolving to a crewed station as we continue our Mars probes and ramp up our Moon probes. We've got perfectly good reasons to put one there, and I'm confident enough of my "read" of the situation to put money on it. Seriously. I do believe in this concept. Anyone for USD 1.00?

--Don't make the same absurd assumptions Ed does, please.--

I hope you can see from my arguments that we share common ground, but I have no idea where EPG is coming from with regards to the assumptions (If you've gone over to the Return to the Moon Board, you've seen that I do my homework), and some of his conduct here in the past (which at this point I can empathize with) makes me hesitant to associate with him in any formal way.

I'm not sure if he's an NSS member, an ISU or NASA Academy Alum, or SGF, or Yuri's Night, or Space Camp, or what. If he is then I guess we could be considered "associated", but otherwise we just share common ground in some of our ideas.

Clearly, we have not agreed on a "Moon" approach. I hope that folks can see that.

--Everyone on this Board has concern for humanities safety and want detecting of hazards of all kinds.--

Excellent, now how does that turn in to cash flows and bent metal? This is what I meant by consensus . We clearly don't agree on a lot, but nevertheless share common ideas. My concern is how to get the positive part to the public at large, how can they be made to perceive that maybe the "space community" does have its collective act together. Their faith has been sorely tested of late.

The question should rather be: "How can the "Mars Collective" (meant in a fun way) make the need for an asteroid scope work towards their ends?"

Is there structure that can be emplaced in orbit that can provide such Mars-useful services as fully inspecting any Mars-bound craft (robotic and/or crewed) to ensure, prove, guarantee that all systems are in full functioning order, all deployments are successfully made, the spacefarers have one last chance to go to the bathroom.

Can any of the missions called for in an NEO Watch require something that can be provided by the Mars Society or associated entities?

That's strategic thinking

--As to Ed's claim there is evidence that there is a 65 million year cycle in impators...if he would lay out his actual evidence for this claim maybe his "chicken little" act would make more sense.--

I've actually seen two references to this one, neither of which I consider authoritative, but honestly I can't wrap my brain around it either.

The first time I saw was in the BBC series "Hyperspace", narrated by Sam Neill. I'm not sure of which chapter.

They use a visual of a carousel horse to convey the concept that the Sun "bobs" up and down though its plane of orbit around the center of the Milky Way. I know, it's wacky, and I can't find any orbital mechanics explanation for it, although its entirely possible I'm just looking in the wrong place.

Then they cut to a 3-D "hologram" the Mr. Neill interacted with it as they then went into the section on the asteroid danger. It's actually very well crafted, and I recommend the DVD.

The second time was in one of my asteroid/comet books, but I don't remember which one.

There's just enough geological evidence to make it plausible/hypothetical on roughly a 30-35Mn year timeframe, but I'm not on board that one either. That's one of the reasons I keep bringing up crater counting and dating on the Moon. It will either prove or lay to rest that theory.

I'm more inclined to err on the side of caution; I'm hoping there is no clear periodicity. Best just to be sure, because if there is we may be able to quantify where we are in the cycle, and whether the next couple of hundred years are going to be really hairy for ground-based assets.

Maybe we just pass through "dirty spots" in the spiral arms. I don't know.

The Mars folks can get on this one by investing in the technologies and instruments that are going to be tested on the Moon for eventual use on Mars. And hey! Mars has a lot of craters too, even if they are "corrupted" with what might be water effects, but could be related to aeolian forces on the freaky Mars dust that's everywhere.

I'm hedging my bets on that one. On the Moon at least we've got a pretty good idea that we'll be able to find the kind of data that we're going to be looking for. There's just so much uncertainty with regards to Mars.

I hate to say it, but I think going back to the Moon will give us the confidence we need as a species to go on to Mars. If we can get to the Moon, why the heck can't we get to Mars (or the asteroids)?

Cheers,
Ken