This is not articulated, but from other reading I have done on the subject the argument is this:
It is well understood that space stations provide most of the value. The significance of a moon base is that it makes the intermediate work of constructing multiple space stations more efficient, especially when it is built for that purpose. Traffic between the moon and a space station, or space station construction site, is much cheaper than between the earth and those sites. Plausible advantages include:
Helium-3 for a fuel and/or energy source
Depot for storing fuel, equipment, and supplies in bulk
Warehousing for stockpiling extracted resources or manufactured products
Basing for space-drones which mine asteroids, build space stations, etc.
Traffic between the moon and a space station, or space station construction site, is much cheaper than between the earth and those sites.
Other than delta-v, I don’t see any reason to think that. However, to exploit even that advantage, you’d have to build the space station on the moon using local materials in bulk. This is at least as hard as colonizing the moon since space stations require lots of high-tech manufacturing to produce, whereas colonization just requires air, water, food and construction materials in bulk which are much lower-tech.
Helium-3 for a fuel and/or energy source
He-3 fusion is way harder (higher Coulomb-barrier) than D-T fusion which itself hasn’t been cracked. The only advantage Helium-3 provides over Deuterium-Tritium is aneutronicity, which doesn’t matter if you’re just building a power plant. Aneutronicity is only important if you want to use direct thrust from the fusion products to propel your spacecraft, and at that sort of tech level it’s better to mine He-3 from the gas giants which have way more supply.
Depot for storing fuel, equipment, and supplies in bulk
Where do those fuel, equipment and supplies come from? If they come from Earth, there are no delta-v savings. If they come from the moon itself, the argument becomes circular.
This is not articulated, but from other reading I have done on the subject the argument is this:
It is well understood that space stations provide most of the value. The significance of a moon base is that it makes the intermediate work of constructing multiple space stations more efficient, especially when it is built for that purpose. Traffic between the moon and a space station, or space station construction site, is much cheaper than between the earth and those sites. Plausible advantages include:
Helium-3 for a fuel and/or energy source
Depot for storing fuel, equipment, and supplies in bulk
Warehousing for stockpiling extracted resources or manufactured products
Basing for space-drones which mine asteroids, build space stations, etc.
Other than delta-v, I don’t see any reason to think that. However, to exploit even that advantage, you’d have to build the space station on the moon using local materials in bulk. This is at least as hard as colonizing the moon since space stations require lots of high-tech manufacturing to produce, whereas colonization just requires air, water, food and construction materials in bulk which are much lower-tech.
He-3 fusion is way harder (higher Coulomb-barrier) than D-T fusion which itself hasn’t been cracked. The only advantage Helium-3 provides over Deuterium-Tritium is aneutronicity, which doesn’t matter if you’re just building a power plant. Aneutronicity is only important if you want to use direct thrust from the fusion products to propel your spacecraft, and at that sort of tech level it’s better to mine He-3 from the gas giants which have way more supply.
Where do those fuel, equipment and supplies come from? If they come from Earth, there are no delta-v savings. If they come from the moon itself, the argument becomes circular.