I thought it was a hypothesis, they didn't find condensate in polar
craters yet. One really ought model this, impact data, geometry,
illumination, all being available. But then, no accurate model how Luna
loses gases exist, afair.
> have plenty of light elements available to last until a comet could be
> diverted for a more lasting supply. Also, with the construction of
Machines do not need wet chemistry/light elements. Those NASA papers on
brick production/hydrogen reduction of iron were too conservative, imo.
One can't use telluric ore production processes in space, obviously.
Straight preparative mass spectroscopy give too little output by far, but
how about molten soil electrolysis? Fractionary destillation? Whatever?
> linear induction accelerators for putting lunar resources into orbit,
Yes! yes! Good, old linear motors. Apropos motors, they managed to build
high-performance YBaCuO hot superconductor motors quite recently, for
cryogenic pumps. Excellent data sheet. Still, it sounds good for
low-luminance region use.
> nobody on earth would be in a strategic position to tell anyone on the
> moon what to do, as such devices would be the ultimate in artillery
You can nuke a lunar colony. One could probably nuke even a runaway
lunar autoreplicator frenzy, but it certainly would be expensive. Still,
watch out for the future equivalent of the Boston Tea party. No taxation
without representation.
> weaponry in a position of tactical superiority over the entire earth.
> --
'gene