Hi LJK

Antarctica - a place for science ==> the Moon.

America - a place to live ==> Mars.

While I agree on the safety issue I don't think the Moon should be anything more than a side-line - Mars is where the action should be focussed, but I just don't see that happening yet.

However having said that there are some majorly important things to pursue on the Moon. Firstly, it's the easiest place nearby to build a space-elevator. And not just to land things on it, because finished products leaving the Moon in quantity is what I want to see, namely PVs and support structure for Solar Power Satellites. The Lunar Beanstalk will reach to either L1 or L2 and beyond, with enough kick for a fling out to the Earth/Sun L1/2 points. Parked at L1 or L2 a PowerSat would never have to rotate to catch the Sun. It could probably station-keep using the pressure of the Sun's light on the array and/or thin-foils too. An L2 SPS would be able to supply base-load power, but an L1 SPS could supply peak-load power at better returns.

Secondly, we need to understand the Moon and its impact history so we can better understand what's out there. I don't think the Moon is a better base for telescopes and RADAR, as EP has so often tried to make a case for, but it'd be ideal for servicing such parked at L2.

I don't agree with the He3 advocates - way too premature. We don't even have deuterium fusion yet, let alone a developed fusion industry running on D+He3.

Adam