Europe, Russia discuss 'orbital shipyard' plans

On Fri, 22 May 2009 12:25:51 -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote:

Marvin the Martian wrote:

:On Thu, 21 May 2009 20:49:08 -0500, Brian Thorn wrote: :
: On Wed, 20 May 2009 21:59:29 -0700, Fred J. McCall
: wrote:
:
:
::Or the Moon - nearer to Earth; no atmosphere at all (compared to
Mars) :and :half the gravity of Mars. Also the Moon's closer to the
Sun, so :solar :energy can be used for smelting materials and
industrial :processes. :
::The two-week nights are the killer. ::
:
:Start at the poles.
:
: For the mass of the tower (to keep the arrays in sunlight) and the
power : lines to the nearest convenient base site, you'd be pretty
close to a : small reactor.
:
:I am waiting for someone to suggest putting the greenhouse in a hole at
:the pole, surrounded by movable mirrors that can direct the light into
:the hole on and off on a 24 hour cycle with a summer like duty cycle.

Who's talking about a greenhouse?

It's now obvious why you spend so much time talking to the Guthball...

In my original post where I pointed out that the 24 hour day allowed a
greenhouse for growing plants.

You then misconstrued that into lunar solar energy. Similar, but not the
same.

Yet, the same problem with your polar solar collectors apply; you can't
have them in each other's shadow, and the moon rotates, so you can't put
them in a line far from the poles. As someone said, you'd need tall
towers.